Polixxy
← Back to bills

H.R. 38 · 119th Congress

Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025

Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9] (R-NC) · Introduced · 189 cosponsors

ReportedCrime and Law Enforcement
Progress
38%
1
Introduced
A bill is formally introduced by a lawmaker; it is assigned an ID and sent to committee.
2
Committee
A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.
3
Reported
After committee work, the committee releases a report and the bill can go to the full chamber for a vote.
4
House Vote
The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.
5
Senate Vote
The bill has passed the full Senate.
6
Passed Congress
Both the House and Senate have passed the bill; it moves to the President for final approval.
7
Sent to President
The bill has been sent to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or let a ten-day clock decide.
8
Became Law
The bill is now law — by the President's signature, by the ten-day rule when the President declines to sign, or by a two-thirds veto override.

Latest action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 289.

· from Congress.gov, as of August 8, 2026

Committees

Judiciary Committee

What this stage means

After committee work, the committee releases a report and the bill can go to the full chamber for a vote.

Why this matters

A report explains the committee's findings and recommended changes so the whole chamber can make an informed decision.

What can happen next

The full chamber may debate and then hold a vote on the bill.

Study this bill

AP Gov
Unit 1 · Foundations of American DemocracyUnit 3 · Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

The constitutional question

If McDonald v. Chicago makes armed self-defense a fundamental right nationwide, may Congress require every state to honor every other state's concealed-carry permits — including permitless-carry states' standards — inside New York City and Los Angeles? And under which power? The commerce rationale must survive the very limits United States v. Lopez imposed on federal gun legislation, producing a rare alignment where each coalition argues the other side's usual federalism position.

The strongest case for

A constitutional right that evaporates at a state line is not a right — no one loses free speech or counsel by crossing into New Jersey, yet a Pennsylvania permit holder becomes a felon there for the contents of a glove box. Reciprocity is how the country already handles driver's licenses and marriage certificates, and post-Bruen doctrine confirms carry outside the home is core Second Amendment conduct, not a state-optional privilege. The bill does not set training standards or issue permits; it simply stops states from criminalizing travelers exercising a right the Supreme Court has twice held fundamental. Congress enforcing incorporated rights against recalcitrant states is the Fourteenth Amendment working as written.

The strongest case against

This is the federalism inversion test: the same movement that argued in Lopez that gun possession is not interstate commerce now needs the commerce power to override fifty states' police-power judgments about who carries deadly weapons in their streets. Reciprocity is a race to the bottom by design — the least-restrictive state's standard (in permitless states, no training and no permit at all) becomes every state's ceiling, nullifying the live-fire, background, and suitability requirements dense urban states chose democratically. Law enforcement in those states loses any way to verify who may lawfully carry. States as laboratories is not a slogan liberals invented; it is the constitutional structure this bill discards the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Foundational documents in play

  • U.S. Constitution

    The Second Amendment supplies the right; the Commerce Clause must supply the congressional power — and the fit between them is the whole fight.

  • Federalist No. 39

    Police power over public carry has always been the states' — a federal reciprocity mandate redraws Madison's partly-federal line from Washington.

  • Brutus No. 1

    Brutus warned federal instruments would override state self-government; here that warning is invoked by gun-control states against a conservative Congress — the argument switched sides.

Required cases in play

  • McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

    McDonald incorporated the individual right to keep and bear arms against the states — supporters read reciprocity as that holding's logical completion.

  • United States v. Lopez (1995)

    Lopez struck a federal gun law as exceeding the commerce power; opponents argue a federal carry mandate rests on the same overreach — conservative doctrine cutting against a conservative bill.

Organizations supporting

Organizations opposing

This has happened before

H.R. 38 passed the House 231–198 in December 2017 and died without a Senate vote — pre-Bruen. Hudson has reintroduced it under the same number in every Congress since, the same number-branding strategy as H.R. 40 and H.R. 14. This cycle it cleared Judiciary 18–9 and sits on the calendar: the recurring pattern where leadership banks the committee win but hesitates to spend floor time on a bill the Senate's sixty-vote wall will stop anyway.

Practice FRQ

SCOTUS Comparison. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would require states to recognize concealed-carry permits issued by any other state. (A) Identify the constitutional provision central to both this bill and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). (B) Explain how McDonald's incorporation reasoning supports federal reciprocity legislation. (C) Explain how the reasoning in United States v. Lopez (1995) could be used to argue Congress lacks power to enact it.

Sources: www.congress.gov · www.nraila.org

Action history

Every recorded action from Congress.gov — 8 total.

  1. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-337.

  2. House

    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-337.

  3. House

    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 289.

  4. House

    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held

  5. House

    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 9.

  6. House

    Introduced in House

  7. House

    Introduced in House

  8. House

    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.