SB4013, titled the National Constitutional Carry Act, would create a federal statutory prohibition on state and local governments imposing criminal or civil penalties, or other indirect barriers, on the public carrying of firearms by U.S. citizens who are otherwise legally eligible to possess them. The bill is framed as an enforcement measure for the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and relies heavily on Supreme Court decisions such as Heller, McDonald, and Bruen to argue that the right to keep and bear arms includes carrying firearms in public for self-defense.
The bill would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code by replacing section 927 with a new provision that invalidates state or local laws, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usages that criminalize, penalize, or indirectly discourage public carry. It defines “firearm” broadly to include firearms, ammunition feeding devices, and ammunition, and defines “public” to include places open to the public unless a private owner clearly prohibits firearms or the location is subject to firearm screening under state law. It also defines “State” to include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. possessions.
If enacted, the bill would significantly limit state and local authority to regulate public carry, including permit systems, fees, and other barriers that could be viewed as restricting constitutional carry. It would preempt conflicting state and local laws and make them without force or effect to the extent they burden public firearm carry by eligible persons. The measure would therefore affect state firearms licensing, concealed-carry and open-carry rules, and related enforcement practices.
The available context shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s text and findings. The bill’s framing is strongly pro-gun and rights-expansion oriented, emphasizing self-defense, constitutional originalism, and limits on state regulation. Based on the substance, supporters would likely view it as a protection of individual liberty and national carry rights, while opponents would likely see it as a major federal intrusion into state gun-control authority and public-safety regulation.
The main point of contention is the scope of federal preemption over state and local firearms laws. The bill targets not only direct bans but also indirect barriers such as fees or other “financial or other barrier[s] to entry,” which could raise disputes over licensing, training requirements, sensitive-place restrictions, and private-property rules. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad definition of “public,” which could affect how states and municipalities regulate carry in places open to the public.
The bill would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code to create a new federal rule barring states and local governments from imposing criminal, civil, or indirect restrictions on the public carrying of firearms by eligible U.S. citizens. It would preempt conflicting state and local firearms regulations and invalidate laws that function as barriers to public carry, including financial requirements or other deterrents. The affected parties would include state and local governments, firearms permit systems, gun owners, and businesses or property owners operating in places open to the public.
No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. The bill itself is written in strongly supportive terms for gun rights, constitutional carry, and public carry for self-defense, indicating a clear pro-expansion posture. In practical terms, the measure would likely draw support from gun-rights advocates and opposition from gun-control proponents and state officials concerned about preemption.
The central controversy is whether Congress should override state and local firearms regulations in the name of enforcing the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Opponents would likely object to the bill’s broad preemption of licensing, fees, and other regulatory tools, while supporters would argue those measures are unconstitutional burdens on the right to bear arms. Additional contention may arise over the bill’s definitions of “public,” its treatment of private property open to the public, and its potential impact on sensitive-place restrictions and firearm screening rules.