Imagine this: you’re a law-abiding American who exercises your constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense. You’ve passed background checks, undergone training, and responsibly followed the laws of your home state. But the moment you cross a state line into Louisiana, suddenly, you’re no longer trusted to exercise that right. This is the bizarre reality being challenged in Mate v. Westcott, a lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) against Louisiana’s ban on firearm carry for nonresidents.
Let’s be clear—this isn’t just a Louisiana issue. It’s a direct affront to the Second Amendment and a glaring example of how some states treat the Constitution as a buffet, picking and choosing which rights they’ll honor. Thankfully, groups like the FPC are stepping up to fight back.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, this lawsuit seeks to dismantle Louisiana’s discriminatory ban that prevents nonresidents from obtaining a concealed carry permit. The FPC’s argument is straightforward: the Second Amendment doesn’t come with an asterisk. It doesn’t say, “This applies only to people who live here.”
“Peaceable people have a constitutionally protected right to carry firearms throughout the United States,” FPC President Brandon Combs stated in a news release. “Second Amendment-protected rights don’t end at a state’s border. This case is an important step towards achieving our goal of restoring the right to bear arms everywhere.”
And he’s right. If the Second Amendment can be undermined simply by crossing a state line, then what’s next? Should we start checking ID before letting people speak freely? Require residency permits before allowing them to worship? The absurdity is self-evident, yet this is the exact situation gun owners face in Louisiana.
The case leans heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That landmark decision reaffirmed that any firearms regulation must be rooted in the historical traditions of the United States at the time of its founding. Louisiana’s nonresident carry ban fails this test spectacularly.
In its complaint, the FPC laid it out plainly: “Closing off nonresidents’ ability to obtain a carry license substantially infringes their constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. There is no well-established and representative historical tradition of restricting the ability to bear arms based on residency.”
Translation? Louisiana can’t point to any historical precedent for this kind of nonsense because it doesn’t exist. At the time of our nation’s founding, there were no such restrictions. Americans were free to travel—and defend themselves—without being treated like second-class citizens based on where they lived.
Now, some might argue that Louisiana already has “constitutional carry,” so what’s the big deal? Well, here’s the catch. When the state passed its constitutional carry law in July 2024, it left its permitting system in place for residents. This allows locals to carry near schools, thanks to an exemption for permit holders. But for nonresidents? No such option exists.
So, if you’re a visitor to Louisiana, you’re forced to navigate a minefield of restrictions that make exercising your Second Amendment rights nearly impossible. Worse yet, you’re expected to give up your right to self-defense in some of the most vulnerable situations, like traveling through unfamiliar areas or staying in a state temporarily.
This lawsuit isn’t just about Louisiana; it’s part of a broader fight for gun rights across the country. The issue of Second Amendment rights being effectively nullified at state borders is one of the reasons National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. This proposal would require all states to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state—just like they recognize driver’s licenses.
Until then, lawsuits like Mate v. Westcott are critical to stopping the patchwork of state laws that infringe on our rights. The FPC’s efforts are part of a larger movement to restore the Second Amendment to its full strength, ensuring that peaceable Americans can defend themselves no matter where they are.
The stakes in this case are enormous. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could set a powerful precedent that prevents states from discriminating against nonresident gun owners. A victory would reaffirm that the Constitution applies equally to all Americans, regardless of zip code.
As the complaint boldly states: “It is the state’s burden to ‘affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.’ Louisiana cannot meet this burden. There is no well-established and representative historical tradition of restricting the ability to bear arms based on residency.”
And the plaintiffs are asking for nothing less than total vindication: an end to the law and a court order barring its enforcement.
This case should resonate with every American who values their constitutional rights. It’s a reminder that the fight for the Second Amendment is far from over and that we can’t take our freedoms for granted.
If Louisiana—or any state—can restrict gun rights based on residency today, what’s to stop other states from following suit tomorrow? The answer is simple: groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, supported by everyday Americans who refuse to back down.
So, the next time you hear someone say, “Why does the Second Amendment matter?” point them to this case. It’s not just about guns; it’s about ensuring that all our rights remain intact, no matter where we go.
The Second Amendment isn’t a privilege—it’s a right. And it’s time all states started treating it that way.
