Nothing says “politician” like introducing a bill that would give yourself and a select community of your peers privileges above and beyond those granted to ordinary, everyday Americans. That’s exactly what happened when a Republican congressman recently introduced a bill that would allow special concealed carry rights for serving and veteran members of the U.S. Special Forces.
On April 16, Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC-10), a retired Green Beret, introduced H.R. 8332, a measure “To provide concealed carry privileges to qualified special operators.” According to a press release by Rep. Harrigan, the Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act amends 18 U.S.C. Section 926C, the statute that currently grants concealed carry authority to qualified retired law enforcement officers, to also cover qualified special operators, including discharged servicemembers from paygrade E5-E9, W1-W5, or O1-O10 with verified service in:
- Army Special Forces
- 75th Ranger Regiment
- Delta Force
- Navy SEALs
- Marine Corps Scout Snipers
- Reconnaissance Marines
- MARSOC operators
- Air Force Combat Control
- Pararescue
- Special Reconnaissance
- TACP
- Special Operations Weather
The Act has drawn particularly strong criticism from the Second Amendment community, as by design and definition, it confers special constitutional liberties upon some private citizens, undermining the very idea of equality in principle and action.
Perhaps just as surprising as a Republican introducing such a measure was the backing from purported gun rights group USA Carry, which has a popular website that provides state-by-state concealed carry information, news articles, and gun store directories.
Founder Luke McCoy penned an April 17 article defending the measure and arguing that it’s not much different from exemptions currently provided to law enforcement, and furthering the argument that training should create a separate class of rights:
The Second Amendment protects a fundamental civil right, and this bill reflects a straightforward principle. The federal government already recognizes that a specific class of Americans, retired law enforcement officers, have the training and demonstrated judgment to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. Special operations veterans meet or exceed that standard.
Extending the same authority to men and women who completed selection pipelines such as Ranger School, the Special Forces Qualification Course, and BUD/S is consistent with how the existing statute is structured. It is a narrow, earned recognition tied to documented training and honorable service, not a broad expansion of federal authority.
Not only is the premise of tiered rights unconstitutional (this publication has argued many times against the exemptions provided to law enforcement that are part of nearly all gun control measures), but the argument that law enforcement ought to have special carry rights over other civilians because of shooting performance isn’t sound.
A March 16, 2026, article by TierThreeTactical entitled, “Beyond the Gunfight: A Data Dive into Police Shooting Skill,” begins with this line:
As a police officer I would be the first to say that the vast majority of cops in the US have poor police shooting skill. A casual perusal of YouTube will generate numerous body-cam videos of police shootings, where dozens of rounds are fired, with very little accuracy.
The article goes on to discuss the performance of police officers who shoot competitively, an activity that, by its very nature, requires additional training compared to their civilian counterparts. However, the percentage of officers who shoot competitively is relatively small. Officer-involved shootings are notorious for high round count and poor accuracy. And police qualification standards are abysmally low, with exceptions for SWAT teams and other special missions groups.
While police (and civilians) always benefit from additional training, which elevates performance under pressure, there is no constitutionally-enumerated right that gives special considerations to one class of people over another based upon occupation.
