Interstate Reciprocity of Firearm Permits
“You bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district, and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this district, count on going to jail and hope you get the gun back. And that makes all the difference.”
That was United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, in a Fox News interview on February 2, 2026. After receiving criticism received from Republican lawmakers, Pirro walked back her statement, noting that she was only talking about people carrying “unlawfully.”
But to me, in her initial interview, she appears to be speaking about only people from outside of the District who bring a gun into the District—that is, any non-D.C. resident who brings a gun into D.C. without properly registering it. Taking that interpretation, Pirro’s comments seem less shocking or incendiary. Indeed, her statement appears to be consistent with D.C. law, which prohibits anyone from carrying openly or concealed in the District without a license issued by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). Visiting non-residents “who live[] in a state that does not require a license to carry a concealed” firearm are required to obtain a permit from MPD as well. The District does not recognize or honor concealed carry permits from other jurisdictions.
So how does inter-state gun permit reciprocity work?
It depends on the state. There is a complex network of inter-state reciprocity agreements whereby some states recognize the validity of other states’ concealed carry permits, though visitors must follow the laws of the state in which they are located, regardless of whether there is license reciprocity. For example, in North Carolina (the Center’s home state), the state “automatically recognizes concealed carry permits issued in any other state.” States that recognize a North Carolina-issued permit include Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Virginia, Tennessee, and seven others. Virginia has a similar law recognizing as valid permits from other states. So, some states choose to recognize out-of-state permits, but the open question is are they required to?
At present, there is a bill before the United States Congress titled the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025 (H.R. 38) that would mandate concealed carry reciprocity across all 50 states. This means that even for states with a permitting process, they would have to honor concealed carry rights of the residents of other states with permitless concealed carry regimes (anyone can concealed carry). At present, 29 states have permitless carry regimes. Critics worry this nationwide reciprocity will create a race to the bottom, effectively eviscerating permit regimes enacted to further public safety. The Fraternal Order of Police came out against the bill in November, expressing their “serious reservations” that:
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. 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.
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.
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.
Is it likely to become law? Probably not. The bill has 189 co-sponsors in the House and has been placed on the Union Calendar, meaning it could be brought for a floor vote at any time. Although President Trump has vowed to sign it, should the bill reach his desk, the bill faces greater obstacles to passage in the Senate where it would need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster to pass, and no Senate Democrat is likely to support the bill.
What about the courts?
This Term, the Supreme Court received a petition for certiorari in Marquis v. Massachusetts, in which petitioner challenged Massachusetts’ non-resident firearms licensing statute as unconstitutional under Bruen and the constitutional right to interstate travel. As the State’s brief explained, “In Massachusetts, carrying a firearm outside the home or place of business without a license is unlawful” and “[b]oth residents and non-residents of Massachusetts are required to have a license to keep and carry a firearm within the state.” Petitioner got into a car accident while driving from his place of residence in New Hampshire to his place of work in Massachusetts. When interviewed by a police officer at the site of the accident in Massachusetts, petitioner revealed he had a gun on his person and reported that he did not have a license to carry it in Massachusetts. Petitioner was charged with Carrying a Firearm Without a License, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. (“M.G.L. c.”) 269, § 10(a). He challenged that charge as violating the Second Amendment. Twenty-five states filed an amicus brief in support of petitioner.
The Court denied cert in Marquis on January 12. That said, I would not be surprised if we saw another challenge like this come before the Court again sometime soon.
You may be asking, “What about the Full Faith & Credit Clause?”
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV provides:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The sentence following empowers Congress to enact laws prescribing the manner in which the Full Faith and Credit clause is enforced.
So why doesn’t the Full Faith and Credit Clause require states to recognize the validity of concealed carry permits issued by other states?
Professor William Araiza of Brooklyn Law School wrote an article on a related issue—that is, what is the source of Congress’s authority to enact an interstate concealed carry permit reciprocity mandate? The most logical foundation for such a power, he explains, comes from Congress’s power to give effect to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You can read Professor Araiza’s article here.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is designed “to preserve rights acquired or confirmed under the public acts and judicial proceedings of one state by requiring recognition of their validity in other states.” Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 501 (1939). The Court has been clear that its mandate applies unequivocally to judicial orders and judgments of sister states, but it applies with less force to public acts based on statutes, subject to regulation by Congress.
Let’s look at the marriage context. Divorce decrees, issued by court order, have long been enforceable on an interstate basis via the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But for the initial marriage itself, the rule is different. Obergefell v. Hodges upheld protections for same sex marriage arising from the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but notably absent from the majority opinion is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court did not rely on Article IV in upholding same sex marriage protections. But in 2022, pursuant to its Full Faith and Credit “Effect” power, Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 117-228, 136 Stat. 2305 (2022) (amending 1 U.S.C. § 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C), which forbids a state from refusing to recognize an out-of-state marriage based on considerations of race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.
So, for our purposes, it seems the question is whether concealed carry permits are issued pursuant to statute or judicial decree. Among the states with permitting regimes, some (D.C., North Carolina for example) delegate the authority to issue permits to the executive branch—usually a sheriff, chief of police, or other law enforcement figure. Virginia, on the other hand, provides that “Concealed Handgun Permits are issued by the circuit court of the county or city in which the applicant resides.”
Does this mean that under existing Full Faith and Credit caselaw, Virginia-issued permits must be recognized by other states, but those issued by DC and North Carolina don’t? Such disparate treatment seems both illogical as a matter of principle and contrary to the very notion of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But existing caselaw provides no clear answer.
