I’m not so sure about this. It essentially tries to codify a “natural right” in the constitution. This is asking for trouble, because natural rights are not modifiable by the law. If a law is written for them, the assumption should be that the law can be changed, modified and/or corrupted.
Lots of efforts have been made in past to codify free speech, and today there are literally hundreds of exceptions to free speech, that have evolved over time.
In this case, even before the ink was dry on the law “permitting” carry, there would be calls on who should be excluded from that law. Convicts in prison, or on parole? The insane, to some degree, and what about PTSD? Child and spouse abusers? Illegal aliens? Foreign visitors?
Suddenly what had been a “natural right” is eroded. And if it happens at the federal level, it applies to everyone, be they in rural Alaska or Manhattan.
That sounds like a gun control fantasy.
The last effort to federalize such an issue was Roe v. Wade. What a nightmare.
The national government doesn’t need to pass some kind of national carry or reciprocity law. What they need to do is pass a resolution (or law, not sue how this would go) saying that the states, in their current situation, are violating the people’s 2nd Amendment right and need to back off. The states have no more right to require permits for carry than the federal government has.
1934 and 1968, already happened.
What they are talking about is a step to returning to the “natural right” condition. Doing this at a national level removes any state restrictions. First step is forcing nationwide recognition of carry permits just like driver's licenses are now (they were not always). Then you declare it a national right not subject to state intervention and invalidate all state restrictions. etc. The end result is to achieve your “natural right” condition, but not all at once.