Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state

Promulgation to these tables from state laws articles?

Taking a look a the District of Columbia's laws, I saw it was out of date. A dozen regulations that were passed in the wake of the 2008 Heller were subsequently removed as draconian due to litigation orders, or litigation threats. Even though some notation of reductions were made, more recent reductions in DC gun laws were not and I removed them today (no longer an eye test, no longer any expiration for registration, no longer any written test required on DC gun laws). There are even others with significant deviation between extant code footnoted in the article and the current facts, eg DC code cited by Wikipedia on caliber restrictions to registered firearm. For example the article cites code: https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2505.02.html which still states "(3) The ammunition to be sold or transferred is of the same caliber or gauge as the firearm described in the registration certificate, or other proof in the case of nonresident;" even though this has been thrown out and cannot be enforced (except 50BMG and certain penetrating rounds). Do the changes I made DC state laws to reflect current laws and registration requirements get promulgated automatically over here?Explainador (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Explainador: Yes. The summary table for each state is actually in the article about gun laws for that state. So for example changes to the summary table in the article "Gun laws in the District of Columbia" are automatically promulgated to this article -- though it's possible that you would not see that right away. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ref errors

There are ref errors in the tables. How do I fix them? I can't find the templates they are belonging to. Please use the ping function to reply back to me. Thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica:This might be because the tables are transcluded from each article.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica:BTW it looks like ref 38 got messed up after your fixes.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Yes, the summary tables from the state articles are transcluded here. So, as I think you already figured out, any reference in a summary table has to be defined within the table, like this, and not later in the state article, or it'll be undefined here. Also, I think there's some script that names references ":0", and that has resulted in multiple references having the same name when transcluded here. That's all a bit inconvenient, but it's worth it to have the tables transcluded, instead of doubly defined as they were in the bad old days. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Article name

Today the article was renamed from "Gun laws in the United States by state" to "List of gun laws in the United States by state", without any prior discussion. This article has been around for a long time, and that's a big change, so, let's talk about it first, and see what everybody thinks. As for myself, I'm opposed to renaming the article. Although it has list-like qualities, it's not really a list. Pinging @Hmains: who did the move. Let's leave this thread open for a few weeks to give other editors a chance to chime in. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a list. It's a brief overview of each state/territory.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Background checks required for private sales?

For the item, "Background checks required for private sales?", many states list something like, "A person acquiring a handgun must have either a handgun certificate or a concealed handgun permit and has therefore been subject to a background check."

This is not a background check, this is an FOI card or the like. The user is checked one time, each acquisition is not run like a NICS or State Police check on each and every sale.

This is covered by, "State Permit to Purchase?" Flagging the mere need for an FOI card as a "background check" blurs the meaning of an actual background check being needed.

Drmemory (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In all of those states, you have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm in a private sale. In some of those states, they only do the background check when you get the permit, or renew the permit after a few years, and in other states (Illinois is one example) they redo the background check each time you purchase a firearm. This is in contrast to other states (where that table entry is marked "no"), where no background check is required for private sales, i.e. it's legal to sell a gun to someone who has not been the subject of a background check. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Carry Permit vs Concealed Carry Permit

Reading down through the list of state laws, it seems rather confusing the way the layout - apparently - distinguishes (or doesn't?) between a concealed carry permit being required, and whether open carry is "permitted". Hell you can see the confusion in the way I just wrote that.

Most of the listings state "Carry Permits Required?". However, I've also run across

• "Carry License Required?"
• "Concealed Carry License Required?"
• "Carry Permits Issued?"
• "Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permits required?"
• "License Required for Concealed Carry?"

But the biggest problem comes immediately thereafter in each listing. Right after "Carry Permits Required?", the majority of listings follow it with simply "Open Carry?" (with some saying "Open Carry Permitted?" or "Open Carry Allowed?" etc.).

Setting aside the linguistic problem of "Carry Permit" and "Open Carry Permitted ", the shorthand "Open Carry?" is precisely that - shorthand, and unclear, particularly that in the sense used in most listings, it seems to mean that you may open carry, and you do not require an issued license or permit to do so - so the answer is almost always "Yes", coming right after the 'yes' for "Carry Permit required".

Do you see the problem? It's grossly confusing. I believe that almost all instances of "Carry Permits Required?" actually mean "Concealed Carry Permits Required". Likewise, I believe most "Open Carry?" actually mean "(No) permit required for Open Carry".

For maximum clarity, I believe all should be conformed to:

"Concealed Carry Permit Required?" followed by "Open Carry Permit Required?". This maintains a coherent sensibility to the 'yes' and 'no', rather than being reversed in most cases.

I'm up to the task, though it'll be quite a slog to do it for all 50 states plus territories. But before I do so, I'd want some feedback from my peers. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a good question. But, I'm under the impression that in most cases, "Open carry?" means, "Is open carry allowed?". In some states open carry is allowed without a permit (so "yes"), in some states a permit is required (still "yes"), and in some states open carry is not allowed (so "no"). I'm pretty sure that what happened is that the concealed carry entry in most of the tables used to be something like "Concealed carry permitted?" Not so long ago many states allowed concealed carry with a permit, and only a few allowed it without a permit, while some states did not allow it at all. But as of rather recently, all states have some legal provision for concealed carry, either with our without a permit, so a lot but not all of those entries were changed to indicate whether or not a permit is required. I believe that changing the second entry to "Open carry permit required?" would be problematic, since a number of states do not allow open carry. So as a yes or no question, it won't work. So, where do we go from here? I'm not sure. I think it's not critical that all state tables use the same wording for these two entries. On the other hand it might be helpful. One approach would be for the first row to say, "Concealed carry permit required?", and the second row to say "Open carry allowed?". Then for open carry, the answer could be either "allowed with a permit", "allowed without a permit", or "no". I'd like to ponder this further, but that's what I think so far. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Another approach would be for the first entry to be "Concealed carry allowed?" and the second entry to be "Open carry allowed?" The first answer would be either "allowed with a permit" or "allowed without a permit", and the second answer would be "allowed with a permit", "allowed without a permit", or "no". That would have the advantage of making the two rows consistent with each other. How does that sound? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's yet another idea. The first row could be "Permit required for concealed carry?". Then for the second row, if the state allows open carry, it could be "Permit required for open carry?" But for states that do not allow open carry, the question could be "Open carry allowed?" with an answer of "no". So not all states would be the same, but then each question could have a "yes" or "no" answer. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

So far I like that last idea the most -- partly because it still allows each row to be answered with "yes" or "no". But I would encourage other editors to share their thoughts. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that a binary answer won't fit all questions. There's the particular problem as well of may-issue vs shall-issue, because in - for example - California, for a majority of the state's population, concealed-carry is defacto not allowed at all, because permits are virtually impossible to acquire due to may-issue. Then again, since the vast majority of states are now shall-issue, perhaps may vs shall would be more appropriate as a note, so that each entry isn't burdened with that as a separate question. And as far as open carry, while most states allow it, it's very difficult to actually do it, since almost always someone will freak out if you're walking down the street with an open carry gun and call the cops, so it becomes a relentless hassle to do so.

Yeah, this needs more input. Anastrophe (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

the core of the problem is that the state tables are just borrowed from the detailed state articles. The tables are optimized for each state's idiosyncrasies. However, certainly some improvement could be made in many (but perhaps not all) cases to get them to be more similar. Open/Concealed Carry? Prohibited. May issue permit required. Shall issue permit required. Allowed without permit. Allowed without permit but (may/shall) permits offered for reciprocity. That set seems like it covers most cases. For the places like NY/CA, we could perhaps add in restrictive/permissive modifiers in the answer as well. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A lot of those important details can be summarized in the Notes column. In many cases they already are. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I like Mudwater's last suggestion.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You may be interested in this discussion.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In general, things should be uniform, however we do need to realize that with 50 States we are going to have many discrepancies and rather than use asterisks, we might just want to change the wording on the column when necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)