Wayne Thorn
I recently had written to my U.S. Congressman about the upcoming HR 38 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and HR 645 National Constitutional Carry Act, telling him how I would want him to vote on these two bills on the HR 645 he sent me a letter stating that he thought that it should be handled by the State’s not by the Federal Government.
March 26, 2025
Dear Mr. Thorn,
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act. This bill was introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on January 23, 2025. It has since been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.
The National Constitutional Carry Act ensures the protection of Americans’ Second Amendment right by prohibiting any state or local government from imposing civil or criminal penalties on an individual eligible to possess a firearm in a public setting. The bill also invalidates any standing state or local statute, regulation, or law that prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in public.
I adamantly oppose any regulations or laws that would make firearms or ammunition less accessible or more difficult to obtain for all law-abiding Americans. For this reason, I have co-sponsored several pieces of legislation relating to the protection of our Second Amendment rights. I’ve previously co-introduced the Stopping Unconstitutional Background Checks Act, which prohibits federal funds from being used to expand the licensing requirements for individuals attempting to obtain a firearm. Regulating a legal hobby the same as a federally licensed gun store is extreme government overreach and infringes on the rights of law-abiding Americans. I also cosponsored H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which amends federal law to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. A qualified individual must be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law, carry a government-issued photo ID, and carry a valid concealed carry permit.
Safe and responsible firearms ownership is part of America’s foundational document, the Constitution, and continues to contribute to individual and public safety. While I am a supporter of constitutional carry and have advocated for laws that protect and strengthen this right, constitutional carry is largely a matter of state law and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Florida Legislature. I am an opponent of the federal government infringing on state rights and taking matters out of the hands of our duly elected state legislators. Should you want to discuss the matter of constitutional carry further, I encourage you to contact your state legislators by visiting www.myfloridahouse.gov and http://www.flsenate.gov. Meanwhile, I have and will continue to vote to defend the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. The longtime head of the Florida NRA, Marion Hammer, said “The NRA has no better friend than Daniel Webster.”
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. To stay updated on what’s happening in Washington, sign up for my weekly Webster Wire. Thank you for allowing me to serve as your U.S. Representative.
Your servant,
Daniel Webster
Member of Congress
I thought that maybe he could be right, so I researched the Constitutional Carry law for each of the states and sent him my investigation on this topic. What I found was very surprising.
States Vs Federal Constitutional Carry (19 page PDF)
This 19-page document examines state Constitutional Carry laws and provides an in-depth comparison of firearm purchase and concealed carry permit requirements in three selected states. I then conducted the same analysis for states without Constitutional Carry laws.
Despite the existence of Constitutional Carry in some states, many still impose their own regulations on purchasing, carrying, and using firearms—some even stricter than federal laws.
Meanwhile, states without Constitutional Carry laws often have even more restrictive policies, making firearm ownership and carry rights significantly more burdensome.
The Second Amendment states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed1.” and the states are infringing on our Constitutional Rights.
I asked him whether this was truly what the people wanted or if he simply believed it was the better option. I also requested any poll data he had on his constituents’ opinions.
I’ll let you know if he responds!
Tell me what you would be: [email protected]
Foot Notes
- In the context of the Second Amendment, “Shall not be infringed” means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be violated or diminished, ensuring that this fundamental right remains protected.; ↩︎
