ALBANY, N.Y. Attorney and former New York State Trooper John V. Elmore argues that the reintroduced Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would weaken New Yorks public-safety framework by forcing the state to honor concealed carry permits from jurisdictions with looser requirements. Writing in the Albany Times Union, Elmore frames his position through both professional experience and personal history, recalling a 1974 school shooting in Olean, New York, that left three dead and 11 wounded. His fatherOleans first Black firefighterwas among the victims and lived with lasting disability. That memory, he says, informs a view that policing and policy should not undercut New Yorks licensing standards. The core of the column is state authority over who may carry concealed in crowded, complex environments. Elmore contends that national reciprocity would import other states rules wholesale, compelling New York to recognize permits issued under criteria that its own lawmakers have not endorsed. In his reading, that would mean more armed individuals in public places whose training, vetting, or eligibility might not meet New Yorks thresholdan outcome he argues is at odds with the states deliberate approach to licensing. A recurring theme is the street-level reality faced by police. Elmore writes that officers already make rapid, high-stakes decisions during traffic stops and incident responses. Layering in dozens of out-of-state permit formats and disparate eligibility rules, he argues, would complicate verification in the moments when clarity is most critical. The practical questionsIs the permit current? Does it belong to the person presenting it? Does that states licensing bar align with New Yorks?become harder to answer under time pressure, increasing the risk of error for both officers and the public. Elmore also emphasizes that New Yorks concealed-carry regime is intentionally rigorous. Those standards, he writes, represent the policy choices of elected officials and the expectations of residents. A federal mandate compelling recognition of other states permits would dilute those choices by substituting external criteria for local judgment. In his view, that shift would undercut New Yorks ability to tailor gun policy to the conditions of its cities and towns. The column situates the reciprocity debate in a broader landscape of public anxiety over shootings in everyday spacesschools, houses of worship, grocery stores, and workplaces. Elmore argues that Congress should prioritize measures aimed at reducing those risks rather than adopt legislation that, in his assessment, would expand the number of people carrying concealed firearms under a patchwork of standards. By his logic, uniform federal recognition would not deliver uniform safety; instead, it would erode guardrails that New York has chosen to maintain. Finally, Elmore closes by aligning with survivors and with the officers tasked with keeping communities safe. He argues that honoring their experiences means resisting policies that complicate on-the-ground enforcement and broaden access to concealed carry without what he considers adequate vetting. For him, the path forward is to preserve state prerogatives over licensing rather than override them from Washington, D.C.