Quote of the Day
Bruen pushed states away from discretionary permit systems, but it also triggered a wave of new sensitive-place restrictions, revised training requirements, and fresh litigation. States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California rewrote laws after the ruling, and those revisions kept the public carry fight alive in legislatures and courts.
At the same time, the spread of permitless carry changed the map. States, including Texas, Florida, and others, have moved toward allowing lawful adults to carry without obtaining a permit, though permits often still exist for reciprocity or background screening. That creates a strange policy mismatch: a resident may carry at home without a permit but still needs paperwork to travel armed elsewhere.
Congressional politics amplify the issue every time party control feels competitive. Republicans treat reciprocity as a visible pro-gun promise, while Democrats usually frame it as an override of state safety laws. Because neither side sees much room for compromise, the proposal functions as both a serious policy idea and a potent campaign signal.
The firearms community feels these changes directly. Court victories encouraged expectations of broader carry rights, but expanding rights also raised harder questions about training, liability, and public acceptance.
Daniel Whitaker
June 21, 2026
Why the national concealed carry reciprocity debate is coming back and the firearms community is more divided than expected
I see this as a Gordian Knot problem and deserving of the same solution. Shall not be infringed.
A modest proposal:
Give in and allow any gun control whatsoever.
BUT
* It must be enacted at a level below the lowest political subdivision, for an area having no more than 5000 inhabitants. These districts shall be redrawn two years after the federal census, and using that data.
* The committee that debates, votes and enacts the gun control shall have one member per 200 people, and those people shall have no other public duties, and they shall serve one year terms and be ineligible to run the following year. They will not be paid nor may they receive any payment, gift or honors from anyone for their service. These individuals shall be adult citizens who are not Prohibited Persons under federal law.
* The gun control shall be described in structured, formal technical and legal language and published in a centralized, searchable registry, such that a law enforcement officer can rapidly determine what rules apply to any individual.
* THE BIG ONE: Any gun control passed in a district shall apply to the residents of that district, exclusively, not to all The People. Those rules shall attend the residents wherever they go in the country. Those rules shall not be applied to anyone from outside their district who is visiting their district.
* Individuals shall be a resident of only one district, at the same address that they use to register to vote; bearing false identification to indicate residence in another district shall be a gross misdemeanor.
* Unless the district of an individual and the rules of that district is known to an officer, simple possession of any arm is not probable cause.
* Sensitive places shall not be enforced unless the establishing authority is providing on-site active defensive services to replace an individual’s own right to self defense. This shall require a hard perimeter, security checkpoints at all points of access, lockboxes at no charge and other measures as necessary for the situation. Sensitive places shall be federally licensed, subject to no-notice inspection and pen-testing, and the license is revokable if services provided are inadequate.
Besides being a authoritarian’s dream of needing a nationwide database of what and which gun control laws apply to the people of each district which also necessitates identifying each person and keeping location tabs on them in detail, this accomplishes what, making life so miserable that everyone will rebel and resort to ‘rope, lampposts and the politicians involved’ (some assembly required) ?
Bit confused about what “Modest Proposal” means?
States must recognize each other’s driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, and paramedic and nursing licenses if they’ve passed the tests and are on the national registry. I think the same applies for doctors and pharmacists, and some other professionals under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I think carry permit reciprocity should be approached in the same way.
“I think carry permit reciprocity should be approached in the same way.”
It should have been all along, or those shouldn’t. “Full faith and credit” is FULL or it isn’t.