Two of the largest police organizations in the country have publicly urged Congress to block a major gun-rights bill, and gun-rights host Jared Yanis says that should worry every gun owner in America.
In a recent video on his Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel, Yanis lays into the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) for a joint letter opposing H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
He argues that what they’re really fighting is not crime, but your ability to exercise your rights without being hassled, detained, or disarmed on the side of the road.
Police Unions Warn Congress About HR 38
According to Jared Yanis, the FOP and IACP sent Congress a “disgusting” letter urging members of the House to reject H.R. 38.
He says their main complaint is that the bill would prevent officers from detaining or arresting someone solely because they are carrying a firearm and would expose officers to civil lawsuits if they violate that person’s rights.
In the letter that Yanis reads aloud, the unions claim HR 38 would dramatically change officer safety, officer liability, qualified immunity, and state and local gun laws.
They warn that the bill would make it impossible for officers to know, in real time, whether an armed person from another state is legally allowed to carry.
Yanis points out that the unions say it would be “problematic” that someone with only photo ID who asserts they’re carrying lawfully under their home state’s laws could be exempt from that state’s firearm restrictions.
To the unions, that creates confusion and danger.
To Yanis, that’s exactly how rights are supposed to work.
Jared Yanis Says Mere Gun Possession Is Not Suspicion
From the very start of his video, Yanis lays down what he sees as the central principle: being armed is not a crime and cannot, by itself, justify a police investigation.
He explains that the Second Amendment presumes people have the right to keep and bear arms.
Because of that, he says, the default assumption must be that open carry, concealed carry, and even permitless carry in constitutional carry states are lawful exercises of a right, not red flags.
Yanis walks viewers through a common scenario.
Imagine, he says, you’re stopped in Virginia for speeding.
The reason for the stop is speeding, period.
He argues that the fact you have a firearm on you or in your vehicle does not magically give the officer permission to extend the stop, run the gun’s serial number, disarm you “for officer safety,” search the car, or start asking fishing-expedition questions about your weapon.
Unless the officer has independent, articulable reasonable suspicion that you’re committing some other crime, Yanis says, they have no legal basis to escalate the encounter just because you’re armed.
That’s where he thinks a lot of police training and culture have drifted off the constitutional rails.
Inside The Unions’ Letter: Safety, Sovereignty, And Liability
The FOP and IACP letter, as read by Yanis, paints a very different picture.
The unions argue that HR 38 would bar officers from detaining or arresting people for violations of state or local gun laws related to possession, transport, or carriage of a firearm.
They also warn that the bill would apply in sensitive places like school zones and federally managed lands.
The letter says this would make it “impossible” for officers to safely investigate whether someone is actually complying with gun laws, especially when they’re from a permitless carry state where there is no physical permit to examine.
The unions also focus heavily on liability.
They claim HR 38 would allow armed citizens to sue officers personally and strip away qualified immunity whenever someone says they were deprived of a right or privilege.
They argue that no officer should be put at greater risk or legal peril simply because they tried to secure a firearm during a traffic stop or disturbance call.
From their perspective, every armed encounter becomes a legal minefield.
From Yanis’s perspective, this letter is basically law enforcement leadership saying they want the power to treat armed citizens as suspects first and rights-bearing citizens second.
What The Constitution And Section 1983 Mean Here
Yanis spends a big chunk of his video explaining the legal backbone behind his outrage.
He ties H.R. 38 directly to the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – the federal civil-rights statute that lets people sue when officials violate their rights.
He reminds viewers that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
That means, in his view, officers can’t just seize your firearm or run its serial number because they see it.
They need probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion of a crime beyond “this person has a gun.”
Yanis then connects the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to how gun carriers are treated across state lines.
He argues that if Congress and courts allow special carry privileges for police under things like LEOSA, but not for ordinary citizens traveling with lawfully possessed guns, that violates equal protection.
In his view, an out-of-state gun owner doesn’t become a second-class citizen the moment they cross an invisible state line.
And that’s where Section 1983 comes in.
Yanis says 42 U.S.C. § 1983 gives ordinary people real teeth to enforce those rights by suing officers, departments, and municipalities when they detain, disarm, or investigate you without legal justification.
He notes that courts have repeatedly held that qualified immunity does not protect officers who violate “clearly established” constitutional rights – and he insists there’s nothing unclear about the Second or Fourth Amendments in this context.
In his telling, what the unions really fear is not chaos, but accountability.
Yanis’ Critique: This Isn’t About Safety – It’s About Power
After reading the unions’ letter in full, Yanis doesn’t hold back.
He accuses the FOP and IACP of “coming out against the Second Amendment” while pretending they still support “lawful and responsible” gun ownership.
To him, that’s a double-speak move.
He points out that the letter complains HR 38 would stop officers from arresting or detaining people solely because they’re armed – and he emphasizes that this is exactly what the Constitution already requires.
When the unions claim the bill would “rewrite the book,” Yanis counters that the book was already rewritten by bad practices and that HR 38 simply “puts the book back where it was on the shelf.”
He’s especially blunt about the qualified immunity angle.
In his view, the unions don’t want their members sued when they “go too far,” seize guns without cause, or use mere possession to justify an intrusive stop.
He even calls out cops who watch his channel, asking them directly if they are among those who violate rights “simply because they’re armed.”
For officers who answer yes, he says, “you’ve got some work to do” — and should be telling others to stop doing it too.
From a civil-liberties standpoint, his criticism hits a nerve.
If a right can be used as an automatic excuse to investigate you, it stops feeling like a right and starts looking like a conditional privilege granted by whoever has the badge.
That’s exactly what many gun owners fear.
Why This Fight Matters For Everyday Gun Owners
Near the end of his video, Yanis boils his message down into a list of simple rules for lawful gun owners.
Being armed is not a crime.
Police need independent suspicion to go beyond the reason they stopped you.
They cannot disarm you or extend the stop just because you’re carrying.
Your rights don’t disappear when you cross a state line.
And if your rights are violated, you can use federal law to seek damages.
He tells viewers that understanding these principles is part of “what constitutional carry actually means” and part of what it means to remain a free citizen rather than someone who begs for permission.
As commentary, it’s hard to ignore how big this clash really is.
On one side, you have two of the most powerful law enforcement groups in the country telling Congress they need broad investigative freedom whenever a gun is present and robust immunity when they get it wrong.
On the other, you have voices like Jared Yanis insisting that a free nation cannot allow a constitutional right to become a standing excuse for government intrusion.
You don’t have to agree with every word of his video to see the core tension clearly.
If the mere act of exercising your rights is treated as suspicious, the culture of “innocent until proven guilty” starts to quietly erode.
That’s why this isn’t just a fight over HR 38 in Washington.
It’s a fight over what it means, in real life, to “keep and bear arms” – and whether that phrase still carries the weight the framers intended.
This article first appeared on Survival World.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
The article Two of the nation’s biggest police unions take a stand against the Second Amendment first appeared on Survival World.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
