Is the USA on the Cusp of Passing National Constitutional Carry? The 2024 elections brought significant changes to the political landscape, with Republicans taking control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.
This shift has created a unique opportunity to push forward a legislative agenda that champions constitutional values, including the right to keep and bear arms. One piece of legislation at the forefront of this movement is Rep. Thomas Massie’s National Constitutional Carry Act (H.R. 9534), which aims to ensure that Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without interference from state or local restrictions.
What Is the National Constitutional Carry Act?
National Constitutional Carry Act (H.R. 9534), is a bold proposal to eliminate the patchwork of state laws that currently dictate where and how law-abiding citizens can carry firearms. Under this bill, states and localities would no longer be able to impose criminal or civil penalties on eligible individuals carrying firearms in public. The Act also invalidates existing regulations that penalize lawful gun owners for exercising their right to self-defense. This legislation ensures that the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, is applied uniformly across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories.
This bold bill seeks to end the patchwork of restrictive state and local gun laws, ensuring that all Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights consistently across the country. Let’s break down what’s at stake.
What the Bill Does
H.R. 9534 guarantees the right to carry firearms nationwide by:
Eliminating penalties: Prohibits states and localities from imposing criminal or civil penalties on law-abiding individuals carrying firearms in public.
Overturning restrictive laws: Invalidates existing regulations that penalize lawful carry.
Covering all U.S. territories: Ensures uniform rights across states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and other territories.
As Rep. Massie explains, “No one should have to beg the government to exercise a constitutionally protected right anywhere in the country.”
Key Data Points
29 states already allow constitutional carry. Despite fears from gun control advocates, these states have not devolved into chaos. In fact:
A study in Ohio showed reduced gun-related crime in six cities after adopting constitutional carry.
Gun control strongholds like California and Illinois continue to face staggering violence, contradicting claims that stricter gun laws ensure Hunter King of the National Association for Gun Rights emphasizes: Twenty-nine states have proven [gun control advocates] wrong. Crime rates remain stable or even decline under constitutional carry laws.
Why It’s Important
Supporters argue that this bill isn’t just about gun rights—it’s about reaffirming fundamental freedoms. The legislation:
Removes barriers for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families.
Simplifies the legal landscape for gun owners traveling across state lines.
Sends a message that the federal government stands with constitutional rights over bureaucratic overreach.
Patrick Parsons of the American Firearms Association notes, “For the past 15 years, anti-gun liberals have told everyone that states passing constitutional carry would experience violence like we haven’t seen since the ‘wild west’ days. Twenty-nine states have proven them wrong, all while gun-control strongholds like DC, Chicago, and California have descended into violence and deadly chaos.”
Challenges on the Horizon
While the stars seem aligned for gun rights advocates, obstacles remain:
Senate supermajority: Republicans lack the numbers to override a filibuster, making bipartisan support crucial.
Opposition from anti-gun groups: Expect loud resistance from organizations that paint constitutional carry as reckless.
Presidential Veto? With Trump as President? I don’t think so. So not an issue this time, but future legislative efforts will hinge on maintaining political control.
The Current Landscape
Currently, 29 states have adopted constitutional carry laws, allowing residents to carry firearms without a government-issued permit. These states have proven that empowering citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights does not lead to chaos or increased crime. In fact, a recent Ohio study found that gun-related crime decreased in several cities after constitutional carry was implemented.
In contrast, gun control strongholds like Chicago, Washington D.C., and California continue to grapple with high rates of violence, undermining the argument that strict gun laws lead to safer communities. H.R. 9534 aims to bring the benefits of constitutional carry to all Americans, regardless of where they live.
Opposition to National Constitutional Carry: Concerns and Claims
Critics of the National Constitutional Carry Act argue that the legislation would compromise public safety and undermine states’ rights. They highlight the wide variation in state standards for concealed carry, with many states requiring safety training, live-fire experience, and stricter eligibility checks. Federalizing constitutional carry would, opponents claim, force states with rigorous standards to accept permits—or lack thereof—from states with minimal or no requirements. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, “Visitors could carry concealed firearms—even if they’ve recently been convicted of violent crimes or never received safety training.”
Public safety concerns are central to the opposition. Many states with permitless carry laws do not require safety training or proficiency testing, and some lack safeguards to prevent individuals with violent or abusive histories from carrying firearms. For example, only 23 states require safety training, and just 17 require live-fire experience. Fearful critics scream this lack of uniformity could lead to increased gun-related accidents and violence, as well as the erosion of local control over firearm regulation.
Opponents advocate for maintaining state-level autonomy and suggest national training and safety standards as an alternative. They believe that stricter eligibility criteria, such as barring individuals with histories of domestic abuse or violent crimes, would better protect public safety. For them, the National Constitutional Carry Act represents a dangerous overreach that prioritizes individual rights over the collective security of communities.
The Road Ahead
With a Republican-controlled Congress and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, the prospects for passing national constitutional carry legislation have never been brighter. However, challenges remain. Even with GOP majorities in both chambers, achieving a supermajority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster will be difficult. Furthermore, the legislative process requires careful coordination and robust public support to counter inevitable opposition from anti-gun advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers.
If passed, this legislation could mark a transformative moment for Second Amendment rights in the United States. It would ensure that citizens no longer have to “beg the government” for permission to exercise their constitutionally protected freedoms—a sentiment echoed by Rep. Massie and supported by prominent gun rights organizations.
Why It Matters
The National Constitutional Carry Act isn’t just about firearms; it’s about Second Amendment freedom. It’s about affirming that the government should not place undue burdens on citizens exercising their inalienable rights. A unified national standard for constitutional carry would simplify the legal landscape for gun owners, reduce the risk of accidental violations, and bolster public safety by deterring crime through responsible firearm ownership.
As the Republican majority begins its term, this legislation represents a critical opportunity to restore and protect Americans’ rights. The stakes are high, but the rewards—a safer, freer America—are worth the fight.
