National Constitutional Carry Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 5, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to federally mandate constitutional carry, preventing states and localities from regulating the public carrying of firearms by eligible citizens.
What it actually does
This bill amends federal law to prohibit states and political subdivisions from imposing criminal or civil penalties, or any other indirect limitations, on U.S. citizens who are otherwise eligible to possess firearms, for carrying firearms in public. It explicitly invalidates any state or local laws that criminalize, penalize, or dissuade such public carry, effectively establishing a national constitutional carry standard.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a necessary measure to enforce the fundamental Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, including the right to carry them in public for self-defense, consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings. They contend it prevents states from infringing upon these constitutional rights through restrictive permitting schemes.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that this bill represents a significant federal overreach that would undermine states' rights to enact gun safety laws tailored to local conditions and public safety needs. They argue that removing existing permit requirements and other regulations could lead to an increase in gun violence and make communities less safe by allowing individuals to carry firearms without training or background checks.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and comprehensive understanding by any informed reader.
Section 3(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 927(a) and (b)
Prohibition on Limiting Public Carrying of Firearms
This provision prohibits any state or local government from imposing criminal or civil penalties, or any other financial or indirect barriers, on U.S. citizens who are otherwise eligible to possess firearms, for carrying firearms in public. It explicitly states that any such state or local laws that criminalize, penalize, or dissuade public carry by eligible citizens shall have no force or effect, thereby preempting state and local gun control measures related to public carry.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to uphold the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and to ensure uniform protection of this fundamental right across all states, preventing arbitrary state-level infringements on self-defense.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision represents a federal overreach that strips states of their ability to enact common-sense gun safety laws, potentially leading to increased gun violence and making communities less safe by allowing individuals to carry firearms without permits or training.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances individual Second Amendment rights against states' traditional authority to regulate public safety and gun control, creating a tension between federal enforcement of constitutional rights and state sovereignty.
Section 3(c), amending 18 U.S.C. 927(c)
Definitions of 'Firearm' and 'Public'
This section defines key terms for the Act. It expands the definition of 'firearm' to include not only firearms themselves but also ammunition feeding devices and ammunition. The term 'public' is defined to include any place held open to the public, regardless of ownership, but specifically allows privately owned locations to prohibit firearms if clearly communicated, and excludes places where screening for firearms is conducted under state law.
This sub-clause specifies that the definition of 'public' for the purposes of this Act 'does not include a place where screening for firearms is conducted under State law.'
Section 3(c)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining the precise scope and exceptions of a law, aiming to provide clarity and avoid unintended conflicts with existing security protocols.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a practical and necessary exception to allow for security in sensitive locations (e.g., courthouses, airports) where state-mandated screening is already in place, balancing Second Amendment rights with established security needs.
Case against: Opponents might argue this carve-out could be exploited by states to create broad 'screening' zones, effectively circumventing the bill's intent to establish widespread constitutional carry, or that it creates a patchwork of rules that undermines the 'national' aspect of the bill.
Estimated impact: This provision preserves existing security protocols in specific, high-security locations where states already conduct firearm screening, preventing the bill from overriding these established measures.