We already have a bill in Congress that would establish a national system of right-to-carry reciprocity for gun owners: H.R.38, the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025.”
Given that, I’m not sure why Rep. Pat Harrigan felt the need to introduce a bill of his own that would allow for nationwide carry, but only for active-duty and honorably discharged special operators.
The Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act would extend federal concealed carry authority to “qualified special operators” — elite military personnel whose training and marksmanship standards match or exceed those of retired law enforcement officers. The legislation would also recognize their service “without undermining existing safeguards on firearm possession in sensitive places,” according to the bill’s text.
“Federal law already trusts retired police officers to carry concealed nationwide,” Harrigan, a combat-decorated Green Beret, told the DCNF in a statement. “That makes sense. But it makes no sense that a retired SEAL or Green Beret, someone who spent a career mastering firearms under the most demanding conditions in the world, has no equivalent recognition under federal law.”
“This bill fixes that,” the North Carolina Republican continued. “It does not create new rights or weaken any safeguard. It simply extends an existing, proven framework to the warriors who have earned it more than anyone.”
I have the utmost respect for Harrigan’s military service, but I take issue with his comment about special operators “earning” the right to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states.
Our constitutionally-protected rights aren’t “earned.” The right to keep and bear arms is a right of “the people,” and whether he realizes it or not, Harrigan’s bill (like the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that’s already in place) turns that right into a privilege reserved for a chosen few. In the case of LEOSA, it’s current and former police officers. Harrigan’s bill would apply that same selective standard to special operators. In both cases, the framework elevates certain members of our society above we the people, and that’s not how our Constitution works. I’d argue that to say that police officers and/or special operators have “earned” the ability to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states actually undercuts the basic premise of the Second Amendment.
Does it make sense to “trust retired police officers to carry concealed nationwide”? Sure, and it makes sense to allow current and retired special operators to do the same. It also makes sense to allow every lawful gun owner to carry concealed in all 50 states, because that’s what a right of the people looks like; it applies equally across the land, and not just to select individuals or groups.
I’m glad that Rep. Harrigan is also a co-sponsor of H.R. 38. I just believe his constituents and the American public at large would be better served if he expended his time and energy trying to secure enough votes for that measure to pass the House instead of working to pass his newly-introduced bill.
Our special operators deserve to be honored for their service and sacrifice. The Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act, though, isn’t the way to do it.
Editor’s Note: Second Amendment organizations across the country are doing everything they can to protect our right to keep and bear arms.
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
