By Paul Engel
December 27, 2025
- Your drivers license is recognized in other states, why not your carry license?
- Congress is once again trying to fix the reciprocity issue via legislation.
- However, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) oppose the legislation.
- Who’s right, Congress or the FOP & IACP?
Concealed carry reciprocity is a frequent hot-button issue both in the Second Amendment community and those who oppose it. Once again Congress is attempting to resolve the issue via legislation, and The National Fraternal Order of Police & International Association of Chiefs of Police are opposing it. Let’s look at both sides of this story.
Reciprocity
For those of you who may not be familiar with the issue of reciprocity, let me describe it briefly.
Many states attempt to regulate the Second Amendment by placing restrictions on a person’s right to keep and bear arms. One of them is the requirement to get a license from the state in order to exercise that right. These licenses are only inherently meaningful within the state that issued the license. However, many states have come to reciprocity agreements, where two states agree to recognize the other’s carry licenses. The unwillingness of some states to recognize another state’s, and in some cases any state’s carry license, is a direct violation of Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1
The Framers of the Constitution provided a solution to this disagreement, again from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1
While Congress has tried several times to restore both the Second Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in regard to carry licenses, so far they have failed. Enter the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025. In a letter from The National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), both of these organizations urge “Congress to Reject Bill Over Major Changes on Officer Liability and Qualified Immunity.” Let’s look at the legislation and these arguments against it.
State and Local Firearm Laws
The FOP and IACP start with some powerful claims.
The legislation exempts any person with a valid photographic identification from state or local firearms law who asserts that they are lawfully carrying a firearm under the laws of their own state of residence.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
Is this true? Would an out of state person with a valid photo ID be exempt from state and local firearm laws?
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
HR 38: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025
So the first claim of the FOP & IACP is patently false. Not only does the person have to be carrying a valid photo ID, but they must also either be carrying a valid carry license or permit from their state of residence. If the person lives in a state which does not require a license to carry, then only a valid photo ID from that state would be required. The legislation goes on to state:
“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, or base.
HR 38: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025
So this law does not exempt people from state and local firearm laws, but only that the state recognizes a valid license from another state. The FOP & IACP go on:
This is problematic, but the most concerning provision of H.R. 38 is that it prohibits law enforcement officers from making any arrest or detaining a suspect for any violation of state or local law pertaining to the possession, transportation, or carriage of a firearm. This also includes several Federal laws such as carriage in school zones and Federally managed lands.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
Again, that statement is factually wrong. In addition to what I’ve already quoted about state and local laws regarding prohibitions on private and government property, the legislation clearly states:
“(c) (1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.
HR 38: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025
State and local law enforcement are free to detain and arrest people for violations of their firearm laws, just not for the possession, transportation, and carrying, because they must assume that an out of state resident who provides facially valid documents that they are legal to carry in their home state must be honored by all states. This is a clear application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Furthermore, law enforcement officers can still detain or arrest someone for the “possession, transportation, or carrying of a firearm,” they just need probable cause the person doing so in violation of this legislation.
The letter goes on:
Many states already recognize concealed carry permits from jurisdictions with comparable requirements, such as live training and enhanced background checks. These agreements respect state sovereignty and public safety without Federal overreach. This legislation would override these tailored arrangements and strip states of their ability to set and enforce their own standards for concealed carry. Instead of officers being thoroughly trained on their state and local gun safety laws, officers would be expected to interpret and apply laws from all 50 states in real time, without reliable means to verify an individual’s eligibility to carry concealed weapons, especially those from permitless carry states where no physical permit exists.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
State sovereignty is important, but it does not supersede the Constitution of the United States, which clearly states that each State must recognize the public acts, records, and proceedings of other states. It is also quite clear that Congress may provide both the manner and effects of those acts, records and proceedings.
Furthermore, I find this claim of law enforcement officers having to “interpret and apply laws from all 50 states” non-sensical. The officers already need to know what states licenses they need to respect and be able to recognize valid licenses from those states.
Qualified Immunity
The FOP & IACP also seem very concerned about their officers precious qualified immunity.
The bill goes further and provides that any person “who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity” may sue a law enforcement officer, who would not be afforded qualified immunity. This makes it impossible for an officer to conduct any investigation with respect to ascertaining if the person is in fact compliant with the firearms law in their state of residence. It would also expose the officer to civil liability if, for example, they were to secure the firearm while they conducted an investigation into other suspected criminal activity.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
This is another example of how law enforcement uses their vaunted “qualified immunity” to infringe on the rights of others with impunity. Look at what the legislation actually says:
“(d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.
“(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
HR 38: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025
If a law enforcement officer deprives someone of a right secured by this legislation, they can be sued. Is that such a crazy idea? According to the FOP & IACP, even if you present a facially valid carry permit from your state of residence, you are considered guilty until they can prove that you are innocent. But that is not the way jurisprudence is supposed to work in this country. You are innocent until proven guilty. And if the documentation you provide is facially valid, meaning on its face it looks valid, and it’s presumed to be valid; law enforcement has no reasonable articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime. According to the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, “[I]n justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Generally referred to as “reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that the subject has, is, or is about to participate in a crime. This RAS is required by all law enforcement, in all situations outside of a warrant, to detain or search a person. In effect, the FOP & IACP are arguing that law enforcement needs to be exempt from the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment and any consequences for their violations. This is confirmed later in the letter where we find:
The bill also seems to cancel any qualified immunity for the officer as the right of Americans to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Qualified immunity protects officers from civil liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Any action the officer may take in reaction to the knowledge that the person they have encountered is armed could place that officer in very real legal peril.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
Apparently the FOP & IACP forgot that not only is the Constitution, of which the Second Amendment is a part, the supreme law of the land, but that each and every law enforcement officer they allege to represent took an oath where they swore or affirmed to support it. As the letter points out, the right of Americans to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This legislation clearly establishes that right, meaning any officer who violates that right is not covered by qualified immunity. It’s almost as if the FOP and IACP don’t want their law enforcement officers to be held to the same laws they enforce on others.
Officers would be expected to interpret and apply laws from all 50 states in real time, without reliable means to verify an individual’s eligibility to carry concealed weapons, especially those from permitless carry states where no physical permit exists. This leaves law enforcement unable to confirm lawful possession during encounters, creating confusion and heightened risk in high-stakes situations.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
However, officers are not expected to interpret laws from any other state, merely to assume, if someone presents a facially valid license, they treat it as valid in their state. As things are today, not only do gun owners need to know and interpret the laws from any of the 50 states they wish to visit, but know whether or not that state currently respects their carry permit, and the rules by which they do so. Again, it appears the FOP & IACP don’t think their officers should be required to follow the law.
Criminal Defense
Although not mentioned in the FOP/IACP letter, there is another aspect of this legislation I find important.
“(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
“(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
HR 38: Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025
This legislation reinforces another central tenet to United States jurisprudence: The burden of proof. If someone from out of state is arrested and tried for carrying without a license, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, not the defense. In other words, that person doesn’t need to prove they can legally carry in their state of residence, the prosecution must prove they do not, not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but before they arrested the person. In other words, the individual is assumed innocent until proven guilty and is at liberty until law enforcement can show they have probable cause the person has broken a law.
Conclusion
What can we conclude from what we’ve reviewed so far? First off, while the FOP and ICAP claim to support your rights, it is quite apparent they do not.
While the FOP and IACP support the Second Amendment and respect the rights of lawful and responsible gun ownership, the specific provisions of H.R. 38 present serious concerns for law enforcement officers. The bill’s creation of personal liability for officers, combined with its erosion of state and local authorities to regulate firearms and conduct reasonable investigations of armed suspects, threatens officer safety and exposes agencies and officers to costly litigation.
FOP and IACP Issue Call to Action on H.R. 38
They claim to respect the Second Amendment, but would deny citizens of other states their right to keep and bear arms while in their state. That doesn’t support the Second Amendment. They claim to respect the rights of lawful and responsible gun ownership, but not for citizens of others states. That violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
U.S. Constitution – Amendment XIV
They also claim that this legislation creates personal liability for officers, missing the fact that what it does is remove the question of immunity for violating the rights of others.
Overall, I think this is a pretty good piece of legislation. It may finally relieve American gun owners of what the FOP & IACP letter claims this legislation imposes on its officers: The need to know and interpret the gun laws in all 50 states.
The FOP & IACP claim to “represent a majority of rank-and-file officers and police executives,” but are they representing their positions with this letter? I wonder why would officers not want reciprocity for their carry permits? Oh wait, as law enforcement, they already have reciprocity, not only with all 50 states, but in federal territories as well. I guess they just don’t want you and me to have the same reciprocity.
© 2025 Paul Engel – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Paul Engel: paul@constitutionstudy.com
