WASHINGTON, D.C. — A newly submitted Senate amendment aims to reverse a key victory for gun owners: the elimination of the $200 tax on National Firearms Act (NFA) items. Senate Amendment 2973, introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), would raise the tax on NFA-regulated firearms such as suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns to $4,709 — even though Congress recently reduced the same tax to $0 in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB).

The reduction was part of a carefully structured reconciliation effort that unfolded over months. Lawmakers originally intended to include the full Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and SHORT Act in the OBBB, which would have fully removed suppressors and other NFA items from regulation. However, because reconciliation rules limit what types of provisions can be included, particularly under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, much of the original repeal language was excluded.

Instead, the House and Senate agreed on a strategy to zero out the NFA tax via a tax-focused provision. This change was upheld by the Senate Parliamentarian and supported by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who declined to override the Parliamentarian’s rulings throughout the process. The bill passed both chambers, and President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025.

The result: the $200 NFA tax — in place since 1934 — was eliminated for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapon” as defined in the statute.

Sen. Murphy’s amendment, submitted on July 22, 2025, would:

The amendment is attached to H.R. 3944, the 2026 appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As of now, it remains tabled and unscheduled for debate.

There are significant barriers preventing Amendment 2973 from gaining traction:

The removal of the NFA tax was a major step toward restoring affordability and access for law-abiding Americans. Though full repeal of the HPA and SHORT Act remains the goal, eliminating the tax itself removes one of the most significant financial barriers to ownership.

The introduction of Amendment 2973 — seeking to increase the tax by more than 2,200% over the original amount — highlights just how fragile these wins can be. But based on current legislative dynamics, this amendment is not expected to advance. Still, its introduction underscores the importance of staying engaged in the legislative process and defending recent Second Amendment victories.

Read the original story: Sen. Murphy Pushes $4,709 NFA Tax Just Weeks After Congress Voted to End It

TRENTON, NJ — A coalition of Second Amendment organizations and individual plaintiffs has filed a federal lawsuit against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan, challenging the state’s complete ban on the possession of firearm suppressors. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the complaint (Case No. 25-13527) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn the state’s criminal prohibition on suppressors, also known as silencers. Plaintiffs include the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the American Suppressor Association, and several New Jersey residents, all of whom are legally eligible to own firearms.

Under current New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c)), suppressors are listed as prohibited weapons. Possession of a suppressor is a fourth-degree crime, punishable under state statute. While suppressors are regulated at the federal level under the National Firearms Act, they are lawful to possess in 42 states and registered by millions of Americans.

The plaintiffs argue that suppressors are not only in “common use” but are also essential for safe and effective firearm handling. According to the complaint, suppressors reduce hearing damage, mitigate recoil, improve training, enhance self-defense effectiveness, and decrease noise pollution — particularly for shooters training in residential or rural areas.

The lawsuit highlights that suppressors do not make gunshots silent, contrary to Hollywood portrayals. “They are loud, but they reduce decibel levels to safer thresholds,” the suit states, referencing data from the CDC and National Hearing Conservation Association that endorse suppressors for hearing protection.

Three named plaintiffs — all New Jersey residents — detail how the ban harms their safety and quality of life. One, a retired Marine and firearms instructor with service-related hearing loss, explained that he would use suppressors to protect what remains of his hearing if allowed. Another plaintiff, a veteran paramedic with the FDNY, cited occupational hearing damage as a key reason for seeking to use suppressors. A third owns a federally registered suppressor but is unable to store or use it at his home in New Jersey.

The lawsuit also points to recent legal developments, including a 2025 brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in another suppressor case (Peterson v. Garland), in which the government acknowledged that a total ban on suppressors would be unconstitutional.

Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argue that New Jersey cannot justify its ban under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Suppressors, they contend, are neither “dangerous” nor “unusual” — the legal threshold for restrictions on arms under Supreme Court precedent.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., and Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. They seek a ruling that would declare New Jersey’s suppressor ban unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement.

If successful, the case could set a precedent impacting similar laws in the few remaining states that continue to prohibit suppressor ownership.

New Jersey has not yet filed a response to the complaint.

The case is Padua et al. v. Platkin et al., No. 25-13527, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Read the original story: Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON, DC — In a bold move to safeguard Second Amendment rights, Congressman Tony Wied (WI-08) introduced the Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement (FIRE) Act on July 17, 2025. The proposed legislation would ban federal, state, and local governments from restricting firearm magazine capacity, effectively eliminating a patchwork of regulations that limit magazine size across different jurisdictions.

The FIRE Act prohibits any federal agency from implementing magazine capacity restrictions and blocks state and local governments from enacting or enforcing such laws. The bill has already gained support from several House Republicans, including original cosponsors Reps. Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Mike Collins (GA-10), Dave Taylor (OH-02), Sheri Biggs (SC-03), and Russ Fulcher (ID-01).

“For too long, the federal government has infringed on Americans’ Second Amendment rights while maintaining a confusing, inconsistent system that lacks a uniform national standard and invites legal disparity,” Wied stated. “The FIRE Act ensures that law-abiding gun owners can access magazines of any size, no matter where they are in the United States. It’s well past time we take the Founding Fathers’ words ‘shall not be infringed’ seriously.”

The bill is a direct response to a wave of state and local laws that restrict so-called “high-capacity” magazines, often defined as those holding more than 10 rounds. These laws vary by jurisdiction and firearm type, creating legal uncertainty for gun owners traveling across state lines.

A 2024 report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) revealed that of the 973 million detachable magazines produced between 1990 and 2021, approximately 718 million held more than ten rounds. This data, including production during the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, underscores that magazines with capacities above ten rounds are the industry standard, not the exception.

“The Fire Act protects law-abiding gun owners and keeps state and local governments, as well as future administrations, from infringing on your Second Amendment rights,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany. Rep. Dave Taylor added that the bill “will not only enshrine Americans’ right to self-defense, but it will also remove confusion about permissible magazine capacities.”

The legislation has been endorsed by major national gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford noted, “Because Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, bans on such magazines violate the Second Amendment.”

GOA’s Aidan Johnston emphasized that the bill is a “common sense solution to ensure gun owners are not criminalized for owning a mere firearm accessory.”

NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane stated, “Gun control activists and lawmakers in states who push restrictions on magazine capacity are doing so in direct conflict with the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.”

The FIRE Act reinforces that a citizen’s right to self-defense should not be limited by arbitrary magazine capacity restrictions.

While the path to passage remains uncertain in the Senate, the FIRE Act adds significant momentum to ongoing legislative efforts to strengthen federal protections for lawful gun ownership.

The introduction of the FIRE Act reflects a broader push to restore consistency to firearm laws and prevent legal jeopardy for responsible gun owners who carry what the industry defines as standard-capacity magazines. As support grows, it signals a continued commitment among lawmakers to reaffirm the unambiguous protections of the Second Amendment.

Read the original story: Congressman Introduces FIRE Act to End Magazine Capacity Restrictions Nationwide

A potentially precedent-setting gun rights case returned to federal court last month, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Baird v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s effective ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. I hadn’t been tracking this case until recently, but after diving into the details, it’s clear this isn’t just another legal skirmish—it’s a serious challenge to how California (and potentially other states) regulate open carry. While I don’t personally open carry, I believe it should be legal, and this case could end up shaping how far that right extends under the Second Amendment.

Plaintiff Mark Baird originally filed the case in 2019, arguing that California’s law prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms in public violates the Second Amendment. The state does technically allow for open carry licenses in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, but the lawsuit contends that these are inaccessible in practice.

After Baird filed the lawsuit in April 2019, the case moved slowly. On December 8, 2022, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed part of the case. Baird appealed shortly after, filing with the Ninth Circuit on January 3, 2023. In April 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a rare procedural rebuke of Judge Mueller’s handling of the case and agreed to hear the appeal, which was argued before a three-judge panel on June 24, 2025 in Seattle.

The Ninth Circuit hearing was held on June 24, 2025, in Seattle, Washington. While the case originated in California, the Ninth Circuit regularly holds hearings in different cities throughout its jurisdiction, including Seattle.

Attorney Amy Bellantoni, representing plaintiff Mark Baird, emphasized that the challenge is both facial and as-applied. A facial challenge argues that a law is unconstitutional on its face, while an as-applied challenge argues that it is unconstitutional in the way it’s applied to a specific person or situation. In this case, the argument is that the law itself is overly broad, and also that the way it’s enforced against Baird violates his rights—even in a rural county where open carry licenses are supposed to be available.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke was especially critical of the state’s claim that California’s laws constitute a “licensing regime” rather than a ban. He questioned that framing sharply, saying:

“It’s a mischaracterization … it’s like saying ‘you can’t drive a car in the wilderness, but don’t worry — you can apply for a license to ride a camel.’”

Later in the hearing, Deputy SG Aaron Pennekamp admitted:

“There isn’t any record evidence of any open carry licenses having been issued.”

This admission struck at the heart of the plaintiffs’ case—that the law may appear to allow open carry, but functionally acts as a statewide ban.

The court is expected to issue a written opinion by the end of August 2025.

If the panel sides with Baird, California could request what’s called an en banc review, where a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges (usually 11) would re-hear the case. This happens when a losing party argues that the panel’s decision conflicts with precedent or raises exceptionally important legal questions. Failing that, the state could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

This case has the potential to be a major development in Second Amendment litigation—but that’s not guaranteed. If Baird wins and the Supreme Court gets involved, it could set a nationwide precedent for open carry rights. On the other hand, if the panel sides with California and the Supreme Court declines to review the case, its impact could remain limited to states in the Ninth Circuit.

Either way, Baird v. Bonta is shaping up to be a pivotal case worth watching.

Read the original story: California Sued Over Open Carry Ban in Baird v. Bonta — Ninth Circuit Hearing Could Change Everything

ALTOONA, PA — Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a nearly century-old law that prohibits ordinary Americans from mailing handguns through the United States Postal Service. The suit, filed on July 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, argues that the 1927 statute violates the Second Amendment and lacks historical justification under the legal framework established by recent Supreme Court rulings.

At the center of the case is 18 U.S.C. § 1715, a law enacted during the Prohibition era that bans the mailing of pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms by individuals who are not federally licensed firearms dealers or government agents. While USPS continues to transport handguns daily for law enforcement and FFL holders, law-abiding private citizens like Shreve face felony penalties — including up to two years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine — for attempting to do the same.

Shreve, a lawful gun owner from Blair County, Pennsylvania, seeks to mail a Bersa Thunder handgun as a gift to her father in eastern Pennsylvania. Because private carriers such as UPS and FedEx do not permit non-FFLs to ship handguns, her only remaining option would be USPS — which federal law prohibits.

The plaintiffs argue that such restrictions are inconsistent with the original public understanding of the Second Amendment and cannot survive under the constitutional scrutiny laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi. These cases emphasized that firearm regulations must be rooted in the Nation’s historical tradition, which plaintiffs argue this 1927 ban is not.

The 25-page complaint alleges that:
• There is no Founding-era tradition of banning the mailing or shipment of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
• The law creates an unjustifiable distinction between government agents, FFLs, and private individuals.
• Modern controls, such as those under the Gun Control Act and Brady Act, already regulate firearm transactions without a complete mailing ban.

GOA and GOF, representing millions of supporters nationwide, contend that the current USPS policy is not only outdated but also infringes on Americans’ ability to transfer firearms lawfully for self-defense purposes.

“This Prohibition-era relic is arbitrary and unconstitutional,” GOA said in a public statement. “Americans should not be treated as criminals for mailing a handgun to a family member within the same state.”

The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to strike down the ban and prevent future enforcement. It is another in a series of legal efforts to roll back federal firearm restrictions that lack historical support under Bruen-style analysis.

This lawsuit also highlights the practical difficulties that everyday gun owners face in complying with firearm laws — especially when transporting handguns between family members for lawful purposes.

Gun rights organizations have long argued that Second Amendment protections extend beyond simple possession to encompass necessary means of exercising that right, including transportation and transfer. As courts increasingly apply text-and-history scrutiny to gun regulations, this USPS handgun ban will now face a constitutional test of its own.

Read the original story: Feds Allow Agencies to Mail Guns — But Ban You? GOA Says Enough

CHEYENNE, WY — House Bill 0172, known as the Wyoming Repeal Gun-Free Zones Act, officially went into effect on July 1, 2025, removing most location-based restrictions on concealed carry across the state. Here’s what gun owners and the public need to know now that the law is active:

Under this law, individuals lawfully carrying concealed weapons in Wyoming may now carry in:

Additionally, Wyoming’s permitless carry law allows residents to carry concealed without a permit—and they too may carry into most government buildings as specified.

Despite widespread expansion, several sensitive locations remain off-limits:

Courthouses and law enforcement buildings are explicitly exempt. Public school employees and volunteers must adhere to school district rules and training if carrying on school grounds.

With HB 0172 now law, Wyoming has largely eliminated gun-free zones in public spheres, giving law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons increased freedom and responsibility. Exceptions remain for highly sensitive and federally regulated spaces. A misdemeanor penalty ensures compliance from institutions, and structured training—especially for school personnel—adds checks and balances.

HB 0172 is fully active, with clear rules, exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms. Law enforcement and local officials are now implementing the practical aspects of the law.

Read the original story: Concealed Carry Expanded: Wyoming Officially Ends Most Gun-Free Zones

Washington, DC – In a fast-moving turn of events, Congress has moved forward on the massive reconciliation One Big Beautiful Bill, but key pro-2A reforms have faced a Senate Parliamentarian blockage setting the stage for a fierce fight ahead. Below are two must-watch videos embedded to help explain what just went down and what comes next.

Jared from Guns and Gadgets delivers a concise and impactful update on the latest developments as the bill returns to the House. He highlights Representative Andrew Clyde’s strong push to reinsert the original pro-2A provisions stripped by the Senate Parliamentarian. Clyde presented a compelling argument during the Rules Committee hearing, using actual NFA tax stamps to demonstrate how the $200 tax and the registration requirement are inseparably linked. Jared emphasizes the significance of Clyde’s amendment and the potential to reignite the fight for full repeal as the bill heads back to the Senate.

Brandon Herrera takes a broader approach in his video, unpacking both the political and legal dynamics of the situation. He explains how the original pro-2A provisions made it through the House and were strengthened in the Senate before being struck down by the Parliamentarian, whom he criticizes sharply. He also outlines a potential silver lining: if the tax is reduced to zero while registration remains, it could weaken the legal foundation of the NFA and open the door to a constitutional challenge. Despite the setback, Brandon urges continued pressure on lawmakers, emphasizing that past activism has worked—and that this is no time to back down.

The Senate passed the bill by a 50–50 margin, with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. However, Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that removing silencers and short-barreled firearms entirely from the NFA violates the Senate’s Byrd Rule, which limits non-budgetary items in reconciliation bills. In response, Senate Republicans pivoted to a compromise—reducing the $200 tax stamp on these items to $0 while still maintaining NFA registration and controls.

Historic-ish Gain? Dropping the $200 tax stamp is a meaningful step but falls short of full deregulation. The NFA’s registration framework remains intact, including background checks and other hurdles.

Political Leverage Parliamentarian rulings only apply to reconciliation. Now, the amended bill returns to the House Rules Committee where Clyde’s amendment hopes to reinstate full HPA/SHORT provisions, sending the bill back to the Senate.

Leaving registration on the books despite removing the tax opens a constitutional challenge. Clyde notes that courts previously upheld the NFA as a “tax,” tying registration to taxation. Zeroing the tax could invite a judicial challenge to the system.

Contact House members, especially Rules Committee reps, urging support for Clyde’s amendment to restore full NFA repeal language. Push Senate GOP leaders to publicly overrule or remove the parliamentarian holding leaders accountable to pro-2A voters. Stay informed and engaged. Activism drove gains so far and pro-2A pressure could force another round of debate in D.C.

We’ve seen the power of grassroots pressure: wins in committee, the House, and Senate momentum. Though the parliamentarian’s intervention is a setback, it’s not a dead end. Full repeal remains possible, and this “half measure” creates legal leverage and buying time. That’s how real reform takes shape from the halls of Congress to the courts.

Read the original story: NFA Tax Removed but Fight Continues as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Heads Back to House

BISMARCK, ND – We recently received a question from a reader that prompted a deeper look into North Dakota’s reciprocity laws for concealed carry. Specifically, the question was whether North Dakota recognizes non-resident concealed carry permits from other states. The answer, as it turns out, is more complicated than it should be.

A reader reached out to point out a potential error in our concealed carry reciprocity maps, stating:

“North Dakota does not recognize a CCL license/permit from another state unless there is reciprocal reciprocity and the licensee actually resides in that other state.”

This sparked an immediate review of North Dakota’s laws, and I found conflicting information.

On the North Dakota Attorney General’s official website, the reciprocity section clearly states:

“North Dakota will honor a valid concealed carry license/permit (resident and non-resident) issued by a state that has agreed to recognize a North Dakota license.”

However, House Bill 1293 passed by the 67th Legislative Assembly in 2021 includes this language:

“An individual may carry a firearm concealed under this chapter if the individual qualifies for reciprocity under section 62.1-04-03.1 and the individual has the equivalent of a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license from the state in which the individual is a resident.”

So which is it—resident permits only, or both resident and non-resident permits?

To clear this up, I contacted the North Dakota Attorney General’s office directly. Here’s a portion of the response I received from the Concealed Weapon Licensing Unit:

“I believe there is some contradiction in our reciprocity between 62.1-04-02(3) and 62.1-04-03.1. 62.1-04-03.1 appears to allow individuals who possess non-resident concealed licenses from other states with reciprocity to carry in our state. However, 62.1-04-02(3) says they must be a resident of the other state. We may look at amending one of these statutes in an upcoming session…”

They went on to clarify that due to the rule of lenity—a legal principle requiring that unclear criminal statutes be interpreted in favor of the defendant—they do not believe someone could be prosecuted for carrying under a valid non-resident permit in North Dakota.

They also reminded us that anyone with a valid driver’s license or ID can legally carry under the state’s permitless (constitutional) carry law.

Given this explanation, we’ve updated our reciprocity maps to show that North Dakota accepts both resident and non-resident permits from states with reciprocity agreements. While the legal text is still in conflict, the Attorney General’s office has made it clear they do not consider carrying on a non-resident permit to be a criminal offense under current law.

We’ve also added a note below the map linking to this article to provide transparency about the change and ensure our readers understand the nuances behind North Dakota’s policy.

I’ll continue to monitor this issue and update our content if any laws are amended or policies shift.

If you ever spot something that doesn’t look right on our reciprocity maps or in any of our guides, reach out to us—we investigate and verify every tip that comes in.

Stay safe and stay informed.

Read the original story: Does North Dakota Accept Non-Resident Carry Permits? Here’s What We Found Out

RALEIGH, NC — As expected, Governor Josh Stein has vetoed Senate Bill 50, the Freedom to Carry NC bill, which would have allowed law-abiding North Carolinians 18 and older to carry concealed handguns without a permit. The move sets up a major showdown in the state legislature over constitutional carry and the fundamental right to self-defense.

In his veto message, Governor Stein claimed the bill would “make North Carolinians less safe” and criticized the removal of permit training requirements and the lowered age to carry. He also argued that the bill would make law enforcement’s job harder.

Law enforcement officials allied with the Governor echoed those claims. Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood called the permitting process an “enhancement” to the Second Amendment, while Durham County Sheriff Clarence Birkhead praised Stein for “putting public safety first.”

Opponents of the bill, including gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and its affiliates, cheered the veto. They cited polling and disputed studies to paint constitutional carry as dangerous—arguments that ignore the experience of the 29 other states that already have similar laws in place.

Constitutional carry supporters understand what’s at stake: our right to defend ourselves should not depend on government approval. This bill was a step toward aligning North Carolina with the majority of the country, and the fight is far from over.

To override Governor Stein’s veto, the General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority in both chambers of those present and voting:

That means a successful override will require full attendance from Republicans and likely some bipartisan support. The next few days and weeks will be critical as the General Assembly determines whether to bring the bill back for an override vote.

To find your legislator and contact info, visit: https://www.ncleg.gov/FindYourLegislators

Freedom isn’t granted by a permit. It’s time to finish what we started.

Read the original story: Governor Stein Vetoes Freedom to Carry NC Bill, Override Fight Looms

BATON ROUGE, LA — In a major win for Second Amendment advocates, Louisiana has officially enacted House Bill 407, removing residency restrictions for concealed handgun permits. Signed by Governor Jeff Landry, the new law—effective August 1, 2025—enables non-residents to apply for and receive Louisiana concealed carry permits. This legislation is a direct result of the Firearms Policy Coalition’s lawsuit, Mate v. Wescott, which challenged the state’s previous residency limitations on permit issuance.

Since July 4, 2024, Louisiana has recognized permitless carry, also known as constitutional carry, allowing law-abiding adults—including non-residents—to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. However, carrying under constitutional carry does not grant access to certain restricted areas where permits are required by either federal or state law.

Most notably, a permit issued by the state where a school zone is located is required under federal law to legally carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school zone. Additionally, Louisiana has designated specific “firearm-free zones”—such as certain government buildings and posted locations—where carrying is only allowed if you possess a valid Louisiana concealed handgun permit. Non-residents carrying under constitutional carry do not meet this requirement. HB 407 closes that gap by allowing eligible non-residents to apply for and obtain a Louisiana permit, enabling legal carry in these otherwise restricted zones.

Under the new law, any eligible adult, regardless of residency, can apply for a Louisiana concealed carry permit—granting them additional legal protections not covered under constitutional carry alone. This includes enhanced reciprocity benefits and the ability to carry in areas off-limits to permitless carriers.

The Firearms Policy Coalition celebrated the passage of the bill, with FPC President Brandon Combs stating, “We are thrilled that Louisiana has made this critical change to improve access to the right to bear arms.” He also urged lawmakers in Washington to advance H.R. 38, a bill that would establish national reciprocity for concealed carry permits.

For those who travel frequently or maintain property or family connections in multiple states, this reform is especially significant. While non-residents could already carry under constitutional carry, they previously had no way to obtain a Louisiana-issued permit. For example, I split my time between Nevada and Louisiana, and having a Nevada resident permit allows me to legally carry in Louisiana because the state honors it. However, this new law provides the option to obtain a Louisiana permit as well—something previously unavailable to non-residents. You can verify reciprocity status using our concealed carry reciprocity maps.

With the passage of HB 407, non-residents who meet eligibility requirements will soon be able to apply directly for a Louisiana concealed carry permit—an important option for those looking to stay compliant with federal school zone laws, state-defined firearm-free zones, or expand their reciprocity coverage.

Those interested in applying or learning more can visit our Louisiana concealed carry permit information page for up-to-date application procedures and eligibility requirements.

Read the original story: 2A Victory: Louisiana Opens Concealed Carry to Non-Residents!