The New York Post’s revelation that the In-N-Out shooter backed national concealed-carry reciprocity is less a “gotcha” than a reminder that gun-control narratives rarely survive contact with actual data. The suspect’s support for reciprocity—a measure that would simply honor state-issued permits across state lines—aligns him with roughly 75 percent of the American public and the majority of state legislatures that have already passed similar laws. Far from proving that pro-2A policies breed violence, the story underscores how background-checked, permit-holding citizens are statistically among the least likely demographic to commit firearm crimes; the shooter’s own criminal history would have disqualified him from any reciprocity regime now on the books.

What the coverage also exposes is the rhetorical sleight-of-hand that equates “shall-issue permitting” with “permitless carry.” Reciprocity proposals have always required an affirmative vetting process—fingerprints, mental-health checks, live-fire training—before a permit travels. By conflating these regulated systems with the tiny handful of states experimenting with constitutional carry, outlets can paint any pro-carry position as radical. The In-N-Out case collapses that framing: the suspect wanted the very licensing infrastructure that gun-control advocates claim to prize, yet still found a way around it.

For the 2A community the takeaway is strategic rather than defensive. The episode hands reciprocity supporters a fresh talking point: the policy’s opponents are now reduced to arguing that even vetted, mobile carry rights are too dangerous—despite the suspect’s own endorsement. That undercuts the usual “blood in the streets” predictions and shifts the debate back onto the narrower, evidence-based question of whether licensing standards themselves are rigorous enough. In short, the story doesn’t indict national reciprocity; it spotlights how little its critics actually know about the measure they claim to fear.