We know Giffords doesn’t like people carrying guns at all. If they had their way, no state would allow concealed carry. At best, it would be a “may issue” thing, so their buddies in politics can carry a gun if they want to, but not the rest of us. After all, it’s clear that anti-gun groups are going to treat carrying a firearm as a problem no matter what happens.
And Giffords is no different.
On Thursday, they published something that makes the case that law enforcement doesn’t support national reciprocity and hasn’t for a very long time.
Let’s take a look at that.
It’s very clear that a national concealed carry mandate would make America a much more dangerous place.
But this isn’t just the opinion of the gun violence prevention movement—law enforcement has long been on the same page.
The last time Congress tried to pass this reckless scheme to invalidate local safety laws, back in 2018, police came out of the woodwork to make their voices heard: 473 law enforcement agencies from 39 states signed a letter to Congress opposing its passage. As the letter stated, “This legislation is a dangerous encroachment on individual state efforts to protect public safety, and it would effectively nullify duly enacted state laws and hamper law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence.” Woof.
The letter also pointed out the alarming fact that “there is currently no system to verify the validity of concealed carry permits across state lines, which means that law enforcement could not confirm whether an individual is carrying a weapon legally or creating a risk to public safety.”
Louis M. Dekmar, who served as leader of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and was the chief of police in LaGrange, Georgia, said “I strongly oppose the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act because it endangers the public and law enforcement. This legislation would override state laws that determine who is qualified to carry a concealed firearm—laws that take into account the distinctive circumstances and needs in each state. No state should be forced to accept a person carrying a concealed [weapon] that does not meet the standards the state has set for its own citizens. This legislation, if passed, would severely interfere with local law enforcement’s ability to prevent gun violence and safeguard the public.”
That’s what they were saying then.
But what are they saying now? After all, seven years is a fair bit of time. Since then, we’ve seen an increase in concealed carry following the Bruen decision, an increase in defensive gun uses that result in a shooting, but an overall decrease in violent crime.
Cops aren’t dumb. They can see this just as well as we can, so what are they saying now?
Nothing.
Giffords wrote an entire article on how police supposedly oppose concealed carry reciprocity, and all of their sources are statements made over 7 years ago https://t.co/Npb5DnTQUo
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) November 13, 2025
Of Giffords’ two sources for why concealed carry is bad, one gets a 404 error, and the other is from 6 years ago pic.twitter.com/KEcgSYPbnX
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) November 13, 2025
There’s nothing new here. Nothing at all.
They’re relying on what people said more than half a decade ago about national reciprocity, but strangely don’t provide anything about the issue as it’s viewed by law enforcement today.
Further, at least some of the officers they do quote include then-Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who is notoriously anti-gun on the whole. It also includes the then Boston police commissioner, because the head honcho of a police department in the largest city in a notoriously anti-gun state has such a high likelihood of being pro-gun or even just neutral on the topic.
So they quote anti-gun law enforcement officers, focus on old quotes, and are trying to make the case that this is the status quo that holds today, all without a single mention of what any current law enforcement officer actually believes.
Plus, they focused on police chiefs, anyway, which often don’t reflect what the officer on the street believes so much as what the city council thinks. Those are often very, very different.
Yet that’s a recurring problem with anti-gun organizations like Giffords. They always focus on what the chiefs say, all because they’re saying what Giffords wants to hear.
Convenient, that.
Anyway, what we do know is that nothing they’re saying now necessarily holds up today, and even if they’d all say the same things while in the same position, it wouldn’t really matter. Our rights aren’t based on what’s convenient or popular with law enforcement. Ignoring the Fourth Amendment would work out great for police, but it would be a violation of our civil liberties.
Blocking national reciprocity would be just the same.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
