“Police unions accused of trying to stop concealed carry reciprocity” isn’t just a catchy headline – it’s basically the argument Gun Owners of America’s Ben Sanderson is making straight to Congress and to gun owners watching at home.
In his Minuteman Moment segment, Sanderson lays out why he believes the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and other police organizations are working behind the scenes to kill H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act – and why, in his view, their fears mysteriously never apply to officers, only to regular citizens.
Throughout his breakdown, Sanderson keeps coming back to the same theme: rules for thee, not for me.
What H.R. 38 Would Actually Do
Ben Sanderson starts by reminding viewers what H.R. 38 is supposed to accomplish.
He explains that the bill, sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson and backed by Gun Owners of America, would allow people who can legally carry in their home state to carry concealed across state lines.
That would apply whether they have a permit, or in a constitutional carry state, with just a driver’s license as proof of residency.
Sanderson frames this as the long-awaited fix to what he calls the “web” of conflicting state laws.
He notes that after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision forced places like New York, California, and Hawaii to start issuing permits to ordinary citizens, half the country has moved to some form of permitless or constitutional carry.
But, as he points out, reciprocity is still a mess — unlike a driver’s license, a carry permit can become a crime the second you cross the wrong border.
From Sanderson’s perspective, H.R. 38 is simply Congress catching up to reality and treating the right to carry more like the right to drive, at least in terms of recognition between states.
Enter The Police Unions
According to Sanderson, the real political fight kicked into gear when the FOP and the International Association of Chiefs of Police sent a joint letter to Congress urging lawmakers to oppose H.R. 38.
He says that letter focuses almost entirely on protections the bill gives to lawful gun owners – and frames those protections as dangerous, confusing, or unworkable for police.
Sanderson argues this isn’t new. At the state level, he says GOA has watched law enforcement groups march out the same talking points every time constitutional carry is proposed: it will make their jobs harder, it will endanger officers, it will increase crime.
But he insists that “in every single one of those states,” once permitless carry passed, none of those doomsday predictions came true.
Sanderson also stresses that the FOP doesn’t speak for every badge in the country. He points to surveys of police chiefs, sheriffs, and rank-and-file officers that, in his telling, show broad support for armed citizens and the right to carry – especially as a way to stop mass killers when police can’t get there in time.
You can hear the frustration in his tone: he sees national police organizations using their name and credibility to push a message a lot of working cops might not actually agree with.
“States’ Rights” For Gun Control, Not For Gun Rights
One of the FOP’s big arguments, as Sanderson explains it, is that H.R. 38 would override a state’s ability to set its own standards for concealed carry.
They warn that the bill would force places like New York or California to accept the more lenient standards of states like Montana or Texas, and they frame that as an attack on state sovereignty.
Sanderson flips that argument around.
He says states never had the right to infringe on the Second Amendment in the first place, whether through bans on common firearms, magazine limits, or “may issue” permit schemes. In his view, when those laws cross the constitutional line, Congress isn’t overriding states – it’s correcting them.
He points out that H.R. 38 doesn’t erase every local rule. It restores the basic right to carry for self-defense nationwide, but it doesn’t suddenly legalize every kind of gun, magazine, or behavior in every location.
The core idea, as he tells it, is that a law-abiding gun owner shouldn’t become a felon just for stopping at the wrong gas station off the interstate.
What makes Sanderson bristle is that the same FOP that screams about “states’ rights” when citizens want reciprocity is perfectly happy to support federal laws that override anti-gun state rules when the beneficiary is law enforcement.
LEOSA vs. Everyone Else
That’s where Sanderson really leans into the “rules for thee, not for me” theme.
He points to a separate measure, the LEOSA Reform Act, which applies to current and retired law enforcement officers. In a letter to Congress, Sanderson says FOP President Patrick Yoes praised LEOSA reforms because they would free officers from having to comply with state limits on magazines and certain types of firearms.
In other words, Sanderson says, the FOP loves preemption and national standards when they help cops carry more gear in more places.
But when H.R. 38 offers some of that same protection to regular citizens, suddenly national standards are a grave threat to federalism and officer safety.
Sanderson also notes that LEOSA reforms would even allow officers to carry in certain federal buildings and tweak how the Gun-Free School Zones Act treats them — something H.R. 38 doesn’t even attempt for ordinary citizens.
To him, that contrast makes the unions’ complaints about reciprocity ring hollow. If the systems to verify out-of-state licenses, handle different rules, and keep track of armed people in public are supposedly unworkable for citizens, why are they just fine when the people carrying are off-duty or retired police?
What Police Unions Say They’re Afraid Of
The FOP and chiefs’ letter, as summarized by Sanderson, raises a series of specific fears about H.R. 38.
They claim officers would be restricted from stopping or detaining people over suspected gun violations tied to carry. Sanderson counters that this is simply wrong: the bill only protects lawful possession and carry, and it doesn’t shield criminals, prohibited persons, or anyone committing other crimes.
He says police would still be free to arrest drunk drivers, drug traffickers, or violent offenders who happen to be armed – just not to use a perfectly legal gun on a hip as a pretext to harass someone who’s following the law.
The unions also argue, according to Sanderson, that H.R. 38 would somehow override the Gun-Free School Zones Act and prevent enforcement in those areas.
He flatly rejects that, pointing out that federal law already treats out-of-state permit holders differently, and that the bill doesn’t give license to do illegal things with a gun in a school zone.
Another FOP concern he highlights is their claim that officers will be unable to verify out-of-state permits, putting them in danger during traffic stops and other encounters. Sanderson’s response is blunt: cops already verify out-of-state driver’s licenses “almost a million times a day,” and 39 states already manage some form of reciprocity without the sky falling.
In his view, these are not real operational problems – they’re talking points meant to scare Congress away from voting yes.
Do Armed Citizens Make Cops Less Safe – Or More?
Where Sanderson really pushes back is on the claim that reciprocity will get more officers killed.
He cites the FOP’s use of statistics about 20 officers shot and killed during disturbance calls or traffic stops in 2024. The unions imply that more armed citizens in more places will make those situations deadlier.
Sanderson calls that apples to oranges.
He says the FOP never proves that those killers were lawful concealed carriers, much less out-of-state permit holders affected by reciprocity. Without that link, he argues, the numbers are being used to smear ordinary gun owners.
To balance that, he points to a series of cases where armed citizens stepped in to save officers’ lives – like a Washington state man who engaged and stopped an attacker who had already shot two deputies, or the good Samaritan in Arizona who shot a suspect who was on top of a state trooper trying to take his gun.
Sanderson also mentions the now-famous case of Eli Dicken stopping a mass shooter in an Indiana mall in under two minutes, something no responding officer could have done in time.
His deeper point is that you “can’t carry a police officer in your back pocket.” With an estimated 1.6 million defensive gun uses per year, most involving handguns, Sanderson argues there is no realistic way for law enforcement to be present for every life-or-death encounter.
In that reality, more trained, lawful carriers aren’t a threat to officers – they’re often the last line of defense for everyone, cops included.
The Real Flashpoint: Qualified Immunity
Sanderson saves one of the most sensitive issues for last: qualified immunity.
He says the FOP openly objects to a section of H.R. 38 that would remove qualified immunity protection for officers who clearly violate the statute and wrongly arrest or detain lawful carriers. The unions warn this puts officers in “very real legal peril.”
Sanderson’s answer is simple: good.
If an officer blatantly ignores the law and someone’s clearly established Second Amendment rights, he believes there should be real consequences, not blanket protection. He frames this as a shield for citizens traveling through hostile, anti-gun jurisdictions that have a history of arresting people at airports or during layovers for properly checked firearms.
In his eyes, this isn’t about punishing cops – it’s about preventing states and local agencies from using their officers as a legal battering ram to discourage lawful carry through intimidation and bogus charges.
You can agree or disagree with that, but it’s hard to deny that this is the section that likely scares some police unions the most. Once qualified immunity is limited in one context, some worry it could become a template in others.
A Bigger Fight Over Who Writes The Rules
By the end of his segment, Ben Sanderson makes it clear he doesn’t see this as a purely technical policy dispute.
To him, H.R. 38 is a litmus test for whether Congress believes the Second Amendment actually travels with you when you cross a state line – or whether your rights are something you leave at the border and hope the local sheriff happens to be friendly.
He also paints the police unions’ opposition as part of a broader pattern: big national groups and well-funded gun-control organizations teaming up to tell ordinary Americans how much freedom they’re allowed to have, while carving out ever-wider exemptions for themselves and their allies.
From my perspective, this whole fight also exposes a deeper tension many people feel with modern policing. When unions push hard against laws that protect peaceful carriers, but lobby just as hard for maximum legal protection and special carry privileges for officers, it feeds the perception that there are two classes of people in this country: those trusted with guns, and those merely tolerated.
At the end of his video, Sanderson urges viewers to call Congress and demand a vote on H.R. 38. Whether you agree with him or not, his breakdown makes one thing clear: this isn’t just about reciprocity paperwork. It’s about who gets to decide when your rights stop – the Constitution, or the loudest lobby in the room.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
