In a move that has reignited one of the longest-running debates in American gun politics, two of the nation’s largest law enforcement organizations—the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)—sent a joint letter to Congress this month urging lawmakers to reject H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025. FOP/IACP Joint Letter – November 2025 (PDF) | Bearing Arms coverage, Nov 18 | Breitbart, Nov 18
The bill, reintroduced by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and co-sponsored by more than 150 members of Congress, would require all states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by any other state—effectively treating a carry permit like a driver’s license or marriage license. Full text of H.R. 38 (119th Congress)
The police unions argue that national reciprocity would “create confusion for law enforcement officers,” “undermine state sovereignty,” and “jeopardize public safety and officer safety” by making it impossible for officers to quickly determine whether an armed individual is legally carrying in their jurisdiction.
Yet the same organizations remain staunch defenders of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), a 2004 law that already grants active and qualified retired law enforcement officers the right to carry concealed firearms in all 50 states, regardless of local or state permit requirements, training standards, or even prohibitions on civilian carry. 18 U.S.C. § 926B & C – LEOSA text
Critics have been quick to point out what many see as a glaring double standard: police officers already enjoy the very nationwide carry privilege that their unions now claim is too dangerous for the general public. Firearms Policy Coalition senior policy counsel Rob Romano summed it up: “This is a hilarious argument for police to make, considering that LEOSA violates ‘state sovereignty’ in the exact same way, but just for them.” FPC statement, Nov 19
The Core Arguments Against Reciprocity
The FOP/IACP letter echoes objections raised in previous years:
- Officers will not know the training or background-check standards of out-of-state permit holders.
- The patchwork of state laws allows local communities to set standards that reflect their values.
- National reciprocity would effectively nullify restrictive permit regimes in states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.
These arguments are not new; similar language appeared in opposition letters when reciprocity legislation narrowly passed the House in 2017 and again during the 118th Congress.
The LEOSA Exception That Proves the Rule
Passed with broad bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush, LEOSA explicitly overrides state and local laws for qualified law enforcement officers. An officer from Texas can carry concealed in Times Square, just as a retired detective from Florida can carry in downtown Chicago—even in locations where civilian carry permits are almost impossible to obtain.
Not All Law Enforcement Opposes Reciprocity
Importantly, the opposition is far from unanimous within law enforcement.
Many current and former officers—particularly sheriffs in constitutionally minded jurisdictions and members of pro-Second Amendment police organizations—actively support national reciprocity.
- The Western States Sheriffs’ Association and numerous county sheriffs have repeatedly endorsed reciprocity legislation. Western States Sheriffs’ Association resolution archive
- The National Sheriffs’ Association has taken pro-reciprocity positions in the past.
- Sheriff Richard Mack (ret.), founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), has long maintained that the Second Amendment needs no permission slip from any state. CSPOA official position
- Thousands of rank-and-file officers openly support the concept on forums and social media, with many arguing that law-abiding armed citizens are allies, not threats. Example thread from active LEOs on Officer.com forum, Nov 2025
Where the Debate Stands Today
With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House in 2025, national reciprocity has its best chance of passage since 2017. Supporters believe it could reach the President’s desk as part of a larger public safety or Second Amendment package.
Opponents, led by the major police chief and union lobbies, are banking on the same coalition that blocked the bill during the first Trump administration: Democratic lawmakers, a handful of Republican senators from restrictive states, and law enforcement leadership concerned about losing local control.
For the millions of Americans who travel or work across state lines, the practical implications are enormous. A truck driver with a Utah permit, for example, currently risks becoming a felon the moment he crosses into New Jersey—even if he never leaves his vehicle.
A Broader Question of Equality Under the Law
At its core, the fight over national reciprocity has become a referendum on whether the right to bear arms—affirmed as an individual constitutional right in the Supreme Court’s Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022) decisions—should be treated differently for private citizens than it is for government employees.
As one retired sergeant-turned-firearms instructor put it in a widely shared post this week, “If a retired cop from New York can legally carry in all 50 states, why can’t a nurse, a pastor, or a schoolteacher who jumped through every hoop their home state demanded?”
Whether Congress ultimately sides with the unions or with the growing chorus of law enforcement voices who believe law-abiding Americans deserve the same carry rights officers already enjoy remains one of the most watched Second Amendment battles of the 119th Congress.
One thing, however, is certain: the debate over “who gets to carry where” is no longer just a civilian issue. It now divides law enforcement itself.