Talk:Concealed carry in the United States

Article merged: See old talk-pages: Talk:Weapon possession Talk:Unrestricted (gun laws) Talk:No-issue Talk:Shall-issue Talk:May-issue

Accuracy of Definition

The opening definition is technically inaccurate as it stands now. CCW (carrying concealed weapon/concealed carry) is not a "legal authorization for private citizens to carry," it is the Act of carrying concealed weapons. A distinction needs to be made between the Act (definition), common and legal usages of the term, and the legal aspects. Certainly, "CCW" is also a common term used to describe a legal charge brought against persons who illegally carry concealed weapons. Authorization -- whether a state simply allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons (as a right; e.g., Vermont) or prohibits citizens from doing so outright or not without some form of approval process and/or licensing -- is a matter pertaining to the legal aspects of the Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.71.30 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other weapons

Concealed carry covers all weapons, not just guns. Concealed knives and (in some states) collapsible batons also required a concealed carry license. Fuzzy 21:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not everywhere it doesen't. I posess an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licence. It applies to nothing but my handguns. It's like that in some states.... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the states where CCW is only for firearms could be listed, along with those that cover "other weapons". In California, CCW only covers firearms, with many of the other weapons, such as batons and switchblade knives are either prohibited or are restricted with an "occupational license". Smokeybehr 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do cane-swords fit in? The S 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

State Total?

The opening of this article states "Currently, 47 U.S. states permit adults who have applied, have no criminal record, and (in some cases) meet training requirements to carry one or more handguns in a concealed manner." Isn't this up to 48 with Nebraska? Later in the article it sayst that only Wisconsin and Illinois prohibit CCW. Marknoble 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... We really should have a definitive list on that, although a list of states that don't allow concealed carry at all would be far more sensible than listing all those that do. Dick Clark 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Still wrong - as of 12 August 2007 the article, immediately below the table of contents, states that thirty-nine (39) states have shall-issue permitting, nine (39 + 9 = 48) have may-issue, two have no permit requirement (48 + 2 = 50), and two do not permit CCW at all (50 + 2 = 52!). Is this because someone thought that requiring no permit is equivalent to shall-issue? 72.12.73.171 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is your source of information includes Puerto Rico and Guam. Admiral Norton 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a fact sheet called "Right-to-Carry 2007", on the NRA-ILA web site. I believe this information should be incorporated into the article. I would summarize it as follows:

– Illinois and Wisconsin (2 states) have no concealed carry.

– Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island (11 states) are "may issue". The fact sheet says that, of those, Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa are "fairly administered", i.e., in contrast to the other eight, you've got a good chance of actually getting a permit.

– Alaska and Vermont (2 states) do not require a permit to carry. Alaska will provide a permit on a "shall issue" basis for purposes of reciprocity with other states (and so is sometimes counted as a "shall issue" state, including in the fact sheet).

– The other 35 states are "shall issue".

The fact sheet doesn't talk about Puerto Rico or Guam. Are they "may issue"? I don't know. Then there's the District of Columbia. As readers of this discussion page are probably already aware, D.C. does not permit the possession of handguns, a law that was voided by a federal appeals court and is being appealed to the Supreme court. — Mudwater 06:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The animated GIF agrees with the NRA, with three exceptions. The NRA lists AL and CT as "reasonable" may-issue. That's a distinction that seems pointless to me. The NRA used to list them as shall-issue, and I continue to do so.

And the NRA also lists IA as "reasonable" may-issue, and with that I completely disagree. Permits in IA are issued by the county sheriffs. Some sheriffs are reasonable, but some refuse to issue entirely. Which is exactly the way things work in California and most other may-issue states.

--jdege 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the law in Alabama and Connecticut say that the state must issue permits to qualifying individuals? Or does it say that the final decision is up to some authority (attorney general, county sheriff, etc.)? That is the distinction between "shall issue" and "may issue". If the decision is up to some authority, but they always or almost always issue a permit, that's still "may issue". — Mudwater 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not as straightforward as that. You can't just read the statute and see whether it says "shall" or "may". And the question isn't just whether the issuing authority has discretion - the issuing authority always has discretion. The question is what limits there are to that discretion.

I'm most familiar with Minnesota's law, since I was one of the many who advocated for it. Under the 2003 shall-issue law, there are a number of criteria that are strict disqualifiers. If any are true, you may not be issued a permit. There's no discretion about it.

But the sheriff may deny someone for whom none of these disqualifiers hold true, but he needs to justify that denial. And as justification he can use only documented incidents involving behavior by the applicant.

That makes Minnesota a shall-issue state. If the sheriff need not justify a denial, that state is may-issue. If the justifications can involve criteria other than the specific documented behavior of the applicant ("those" people don't need guns), then it's may issue.

AIUI, AL and CT are states in which the statutes don't specifically require justification, but in which the courts have a record of reversing denials when the issuing authorities can't provide one.

--jdege 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's complicated all right. It's like it's a gray area or a judgment call whether some states are "may issue" or "shall issue". I'm understanding you to say that Alabama and Connecticut should be considered "shall issue" and Iowa should be considered "may issue". Suppose there was a consensus on that. That would make 2 "no issue" states (IL, WI), 9 "may issue" (CA, DE, HI, IA, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI), 37 "shall issue", and 2 "no permit required" (AK, VT), right? In a related question, would it not be best to list in the article the specific states in each of those four categories? And also, what would be a good reference to cite for this (especially if not using the NRA-ILA counts)? — Mudwater 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two states that do not require permits, two states that do not issue permits, and 47 states that issue permits. And yes, that adds up to 51.

My count is 2 unrestricted, 37 shall-issue, 9 may-issue, and 2 no-issue.

The NRA's count is 2 unrestricted, 35 shall-issue, 3 reasonable may-issue, 8 may-issue, and 2 no-issue.

handgunlaw.us has 37 shall-issue, 11 may-issue, and 2 no-issue. And breaks the shall-issue into 7 states that don't recognize permits issued to non-residents and 30 states that do. (Michigan, for example, which recognizes Florida permits only when held by Florida residents.)

Given the fuzzy boundaries, and the different criteria used, I don't think it's at all necessary for the article to include a count at all.

--jdege 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Current intro: "Privilege"

The use of the term "privilege" violates WP:NPOV. While some feel that CCW is a privilege to be granted by local government, similar to drivers' license, others feel that concealed carry is a right granted by the US Constitution and, where infringed by local government, is a violation of Federal law.

The introduction, by defining CCW as a privilege, does not acknowledge this and therefore is not as neutral as it could be.

69.181.2.4 18:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In the wording of the US Constitution, the rights are "unalienable" and are not "granted by the US Constitution" or any governmental power. This may seem to be a semantic or almost trivial difference, but it is not. A priviledge granted by government can be revoked by government. An unalienable right, such as th right to liberty or the right to self determination or the right to self defense and self preservation cannot.

Um, the Constitution does not have the word "unalienable rights", that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, while being a great document, is not legally binding. Furthermore, the only rights that the Declaration addresses as unalienable are "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". You could argue that liberty covers all rights granted in the constitution, or you could argue that they just cover certain rights. That being said, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding. Dunstvangeet 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge "issue" articles with this main Carry article

I believe that this article would be nicely suited to the smaller "issue" articles that are generally short stubs and discuss one aspect of concealed carry. For example Shall-issue, No-issue, May-issue, Unrestricted (gun laws). Arthurrh 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Comment below moved from Talk:Shall-issue:

I definitely agree with this. Bloodshedder 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Comment below moved from Talk:Unrestricted (gun laws):

I agree. Most of what the listed articles contain mirrors what the Concealed Carry in the United States contains. Having the same information in two places is likely to lead to disagreements between the articles if one is updated without the other being updated. --Rich 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I too think the proposal to merge the other articles into this one makes sense. As per the "merge from multiple" template on this article, we are talking about merging in the following articles: Shall-issue, No-issue, May-issue, Unrestricted (gun laws) , and Weapon possession. — Mudwater 13:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Finished Arthurrh (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. However, there's still some cleanup to be done, to eliminate double redirects. For example, "Shall issue" is now a double redirect (it redirects to "Shall-issue", which redirects to "Concealed carry in the United States#Shall-issue"), so if you go there you'll end up on a redirect page instead of an article. To find and fix these, it's necessary to go to the former articles (new redirect pages) and click on "What links here". The articles that need to have double redirects fixed will be indented under the redirects. See Wikipedia:Double redirects for a full explanation. — Mudwater 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify this a bit, it is not necessary to change all the articles that now have double redirects. Instead it's only necessary to fix the double redirects themselves, as explained on Wikipedia:Double redirects. To use the above example, "Shall issue" should be changed to redirect to "Concealed carry in the United States#Shall-issue" instead of to "Shall-issue". — Mudwater 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done what I could. Arthurrh (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There was still a little bit of redirect weirdness going on, and after playing around with it for a while I figured out it had to do with capitalization in come of the redirect pages and the existence of another redirect page called "Concealed Carry in the United States" which redirects to "Concealed carry in the United States". I changed the caps on the affected pages and I'm pretty sure we're all set. Thanks again for doing the merge. — Mudwater 02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminological research

Criminological research: There is a great deal of advocacy and agenda-driven research on conceal and carry laws -- but there is no consensus in criminological research of the type represented in this article. Most criminologists would argue that more guns = more crime although the most sophisticated, comparative research indicates that there is no relationship between the laws and the amounts of crime. While this is not my particular area of expertise, I am a criminologist.

Extrajuice 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)ExtrajuiceExtrajuice 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don Kates disagrees with you:

61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior--though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

The difficulty of enforcement crucially undercuts the violence-reductive potential of gun laws. Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm. A leading English analyst's pessimistic view has been summarized as follows: "[I]n any society the number of guns always suffices to arm the few who want to obtain and use them illegally ...."

Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.

Whether shall-issue laws reduce crime levels or have no effect is an open question. That they do not increase rates of violent crime has been clearly demonstrated. That gun control measures aimed at the general populace do not reduce rates of violent crime has similarly been clearly demonstrated.

--jdege 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's your article and your encyclopedia. I just finished reading a number of peer reviewed studies for class. First, in a general way, more guns (not conceal and carry) are so clearly related to more crime it is not even a question. Second, longitudinal studies significantly more sophisticated than the ones cited in this article see none, zero, zzizzer, nada deterrence of crime. But as I say, it is your encyclopedia, that's why I mention it in the discussion.

Extrajuice 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)ExtrajuiceExtrajuice 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which "peer-reviewed" studies? The batch that the Joyce Foundation just finished paying for? --jdege 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating External Links

I think we need to eliminate some, if not all, of the external links (WP is not a link farm - see: WP:EL). Any suggestions on what needs to go? At the very least it's easy to see that some of the sites listed do not qualify as a reliable source. PeetMoss 01:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start by removing things that obviously don't have anything directly to do with concealed carry. Probably we could go further. Arthur 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

I would be strongly in favor of keeping a small number of external links -- maybe half a dozen or so -- for the most important national groups related to concealed carry in the U.S. I would also be in favor of including both pro gun rights and pro gun control links. A lot of people who edit this article have strong opinions on this subject -- I know I do -- but since it's an encyclopedia we should try to have some balance. There are two articles I know of that are already doing all this quite well in my opinion -- Gun politics in the United States and Gun laws in the United States (by state). (In the Gun politics article, check out the comments embedded in the External links section asking people not to add more links without agreement on the talk page first.) — Mudwater 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a WP guideline or well established precedence for using external links to provide some balance. After reviewing the links the only one I can prove comes from a reliable source is the "NRA-ILA guide to gun laws" and it also meets the criteria for containing material directly related to this article that cannot be included within the article. Because the burden of proving an external link meets WP guidelines falls on the person placing the link I am going to delete the rest of the links. PeetMoss 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When I mentioned trying to be balanced, I was thinking of the standard Wikipedia guidelines about an article having a neutral point of view. And I still think it might make sense to have more than one external link for this article. On the other hand, what you're saying makes sense too. The NRA-ILA link is a reliable source, and contains valuable reference material directly related to the article. I want to think about this some more, and I'd be interested in what other editors have to say, but my initial reaction is that having just that one link seems reasonable. — Mudwater 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Balance is an excellent goal, but all sources must always pass WP:RS and links must pass WP:EL, which means they have to add something useful to the exact topic of the article. Most of the pro gun-control links had nothing to do with concealed carry and simply don't belong on this article. Arthur 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom

The link to rtc.gif was deleted from this page, because the image rtc.gif was deleted. The image was deleted after a very short and content-free discussion, of which the most meaningful remark was "delete per nom".

Can anyone tell me what that is supposed to mean? --jdege 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wild Claims

Please don't post wild claims here - such as 'research has proved absolutely and beyond reasonable doubt that concealed carry reduces crime rates in all states of the United States' - this kind of sweeping claim destroys what little credibility this article has. Very rare in any science or research of this nature that anything is proved beyond reasonable doubt - that is why democratic debate exists - because of all those inconvenient grey areas. Riversider2008 (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some "wild claims" are supportable. The evidence that widespread legal carry reduces crime is arguable. Some researchers have show a modest correlation, others have found either a very minor correlation or none. And even if we accept that the correlation exists, that doesn't prove causation.

But the logic behind the original opposition to shall-issue laws - that widespread legal carry will cause increased crime, has been definitively disproven. We have a large enough data set to be certain. We have significantly increased the number of citizens who are legally empowered to carry in close to 40 states, and in not a single one of them has this been correlated with an increase in crime.

And while correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does prove lack of causation.

It's important to understand what we do know, and what we don't know, and to be very cautious as we approach the division between the two.

--jdege (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Carry in vehicles

Regarding the statement "most states allow carry in vehicles without restrictions"; I am not aware of any state that permits the carry of firearms in vehicles without restrictions. What states permit the unrestricted carrying of firearms within the passenger compartment? (By a 1986 Federal law, handgun carry in a trunk, with the firearm unloaded, is protected as long as one is traveling from and to a part of the US that allows such firearms. But, this is not the same as carrying open or concealed within a passenger compartment of a vehicle.) Yaf (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, my edit hardly qualifies as a wild claim since I did not post it in the article. With respect to my edit, in the state of Florida any non-felon may carry a loaded weapon without a CCW in any vehicle. I'll concede that there may be some requirements because in Florida the weapon must be in a holster. The same applies in Georgia.Patchogue (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)