Jump to content

Concealed carry in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patchogue (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 10 January 2008 (Undid revision 183257153 by Yaf (talk) Most states allow carry in vehicles without restrictions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the United States, carrying concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. The choice of permitted weapon depends on the state; some states restrict the weapon to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or even martial arts weapons to be carried. CCW is a more generalized heading for various State terms for a permit to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun Permit/License (CHP/CHL), Concealed (Defensive) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (LTC), and similar.

The current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition; however, no state which has adopted a "shall-issue" concealed carry law (where, if the requirements for a permit are met, the permit must be issued without discretion) has reversed its decision. Currently, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry and about half provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". In 13 states, the same permit or license is required to open-carry a handgun, but most states do not require a permit or license to carry openly; in six states, most of which have concealed-carry licenses or permits, open-carry is prohibited.

State laws

History of Right To Carry laws

In 39 concealed-carry states, issuing officials may not arbitrarily deny a concealed-carry application, a practice known as Florida-style "shall issue", even though this practice had been adopted in Washington state in 1961.[citation needed] Nine states have "may issue" laws requiring the applicant to demonstrate specific "need." In practice, this is often a mechanism to deny licensing.[citation needed]

These "may issue" states range from "shall issue" in practice, such as Alabama and Connecticut; to "at the whim of local officials", such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, (where rural officials liberally issue permits but urban officials seldom do) to "almost non-issue" in states such as Maryland; to "never-issue" Hawaii where, though state law allows for the issuance of permits, officials choose not to issue them under any circumstances[1].

Two states, Vermont[2] and Alaska[3], allow a non-felon aged 16 or 21, respectively, to carry without requiring a permit as a fundamental right. Alaskan residents may optionally obtain a permit granting reciprocal carry privileges in certain other states, or to be exempted from the NICS background check. Vermont extends the right to carry without requiring a permit to non-residents as well as to residents, but issues no permits to residents that could function to allow reciprocal concealed carry rights for Vermont residents while in other states.

As of 2006, two states (Wisconsin[4] and Illinois[5]) and Washington D.C.[6] have no provision for legal concealed-carry privileges. There are currently movements in each of these states to pass concealed-carry laws. Legislation was passed in 2004 and again in 2005 but vetoed by the respective governors. On March 23, 2006, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Kathleen Sebelius' veto and enacted a concealed-carry law effective July 1.[7]

Reciprocal recognition of concealed-carry privileges and rights vary state-to-state, are negotiated between individual states, and sometimes additionally depend on the residency status of the license holder, even when holding a permit or license. Presently, a license or permit from most states, held by a resident of that state, is recognized in approximately 30 other states. In contrast, a license or permit from most states, held by a non-resident of that state, is recognized in slightly fewer than 30 other states at present. Attempts have been made in the United States House of Representatives (H.R. 226) to enact legislation to compel complete reciprocity for concealed-carry licenses (just as motor vehicle licenses enjoy complete reciprocity.) The United States Senate (S. 388) has introduced similar legislation.

A licensee residing in one state may be able to carry or transport a weapon concealed in another state provided there is a reciprocity agreement between the two states. A licensee is considered to have constructive knowledge of the law as it applies (that is, courts will presume the licensee knows the law within the reciprocal state).

Legislation, case-law, and interpretation thereof by law enforcement agencies change rapidly and frequently in this area of law, and online sources may not be reliable or up-to-date.

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (federal law)

In 2004, the United States Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S. Code 926B and 926C. This federal law allows two classes of persons — the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" — to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.

Training

Recognizing the responsibility associated in concealed-carrying a firearm, some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course. Most courses have a classroom and range component, often being completed in one to two days. The classroom topics can include the following: firearm mechanics and terminology; concealed carry legislation and limitations; liability issues; carry methods and safety; home defense; methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations; and practice of techniques. These courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. While state laws vary, generally use of deadly force must be a matter of last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of so-called "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat. Even given these relaxed restrictions on use of force, using a handgun must still be a last resort; the user must reasonably believe that nothing short of deadly force will protect the life or property at stake in a situation.

During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling of a firearm, how to safely operate the handgun, and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Most states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade.

Some states recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. These states will allow a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also largely exempt from qualification requirements, due to the federal statute.

Liability is present where the licensee brandishes the weapon, threatens use, or exacerbates a volatile situation, or when the licensee is carrying while intoxicated.

Weapon possession

Weapon possession, as a crime, consists of that circumstance in which a person who is not legally authorised to carry a concealed weapon is found in possession of such a weapon.

In the United States, it can often be interpreted as the possession of a firearm by a person legally disqualified from doing so under the Gun Control Act.

Alternately, it can also consist of a circumstance where someone authorized to carry openly or concealed is found with a weapon in a place where the right does not apply, such as a school, government building, airport, church, or another jurisdiction not honoring the permit. For instance, many states prohibit unlicensed carry, whether otherwise allowed or not, on the grounds of a business that sells alcohol. Most states allowing concealed or open carry offer an "opt-out" privilege for any business whereby, usually through prominent posting of a specific sign at the entrance, property owners/lessees can prohibit even licensed carry on the premises. Most homeowners are considered to intrinsically have that right, no signs required.

Additionally it can mean possession of a firearm, such as a machine gun or sawed-off shotgun, which is unregistered, or of illegal knives such as stilettos or switchblades (depending on country).

Carry in vehicles

Some states, even those where unlicensed open or concealed carry is illegal, allow a handgun to be kept in a personal vehicle, with no permit required, and it can be used for defense purposes similar to a handgun kept in a home. In Texas, this is based on a law enacted in 2007 amending Section 46.02 of the Texas Penal Code to state specifically that the therein-defined crime of Unlawful Carry of a Weapon does not apply to someone who is inside a vehicle they own or legally possess, unless the weapon is in plain sight or the person cannot legally possess a weapon [8]. This is often called the "traveler assumption" in states which have it because an officer must assume a person carrying a weapon in their car is transporting it, pre-empting all but probable cause on the part of the officer that the person has or intends to commit a crime. Previously, states such as Texas specified that a person travelling is exempt from the statute, but the definition of "travelling" was vague and based on case law, allowing officers to arrest those found with rifles or handguns in their vehicles as an intimidation or discrimination tactic, thus forcing the accused to defend their actions as legal.

Politics

Main article: Gun politics

Laws

The largest topic in concealed carry politics is who can legally carry concealed weapons. Three common policies are prohibition of concealed carry, discretionary licensing, and non-discretionary licensing. Less common is unregulated, legal concealed carry such as in Vermont and Alaska. Furthermore, minimum age requirements of 18 or 21 years are typical.

Even in localities where concealed carrying is permitted, there may be legal restrictions on where a person may carry a concealed weapon. Typical examples include the prohibition of concealed carry in:

  • public or private elementary and secondary schools (the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 contains an exception for individuals carrying under a state-issued permit, but some states that issue permits forbid carry in schools),
  • establishments that sell alcohol (some ban carry from all such establishments such as liquor stores and restaurants, others only from businesses defined as "bars" by state liquor laws),
  • government buildings (State Capitol, courthouses, police stations, federal buildings),
  • public accommodations (theaters, concert halls), and/or
  • public events (polling places, state fairs).

These restrictions vary widely, particularly in the United States. For example, in Texas, concealed carry is not permitted in any establishment which generates 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption.[9] In Florida, concealed carry is permitted in a restaurant that serves alcohol but not in the bar area. Virginia prohibits concealed-carry in businesses with a liquor license but open-carry is permitted.[10] Pennsylvania does not prohibit carry in any establishment, whether it be a family restaurant, bar, or club, but it does prohibit carry in Primary and Secondary Schools and their Property and Court Houses.[11] In many states, such as Arizona, a law-abiding permit holder may not carry in any establishment licensed to dispense alcohol for on-premises consumption.

Further restrictions may be placed on what kind of guns may be carried and how many a person may carry at one time.

"Opt-Out" statutes ("Gun-Free Zones")

Many states, in addition to outright bans on concealed carry in some or all of the places mentioned above, allow any business to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit. In Texas for instance, the applicable statute is Section 30.06 of the Texas Penal Code, and requires a sign in contrasting colors, with letters 1 inch tall, with exactly the following text in both English and Spanish, be posted at every entrance to a business prohibiting concealed carry:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."[12]

By posting the signs, businesses create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun similar to schools, hospitals, and public events. These areas are often referred to as "gun-free zones", although that term is often denounced as a misnomer unless immediately enforced on entry with searches or metal detectors such as in a government building or airport. In addition to signage, virtually all jurisdictions also allow some form of oral communication that firearms are not allowed in the building or on the property, and refusal to heed a request not to enter or remain on the premises while carrying constitutes trespassing.

"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws are highly contested. Proponents state that, similar to many decisions a business or indeed any property owner can make regarding actions taken on his property like eating/drinking, alcohol consumption and smoking, a property owner has the right to ban carry of concealed weapons on their property, for any reason or no reason. Opponents state that these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, and in fact are harmful to lawful individuals; only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property, and otherwise law-abiding individuals who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law with a possible consequence of the revokation of their ability to carry concealed. Such opponents point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner has prohibited concealed carry as proof that criminals intent on committing far more heinous gun crimes are not deterred by a sign on the door prohibiting fireams. In the extreme such criminals are possibly even drawn to such an area, as criminals might presume the population to be less armed and able to defend themselves than that which he might find in an area that permitted concealed handgun carry.

Some concealed-carry advocates, therefore, recommend boycotting businesses that prohibit concealed carry as being unsafe areas. Some even recommend that permit holders look for any excuse to ignore the sign; in Texas for example, the specification of the sign is quite clear and a sign that does not meet the specification does not carry the force of the law behind it. Therefore, a sign that only depicts the silhouette of a gun with a red circle and slash (similar to other signs prohibiting an action), or that simply says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED" can technically be ignored as it doesn't fulfill the requirements to ban permit holders from carrying concealed. In addition, a sign that is too small, with incorrect text, or not placed prominently at the entrance is also nonbinding according to the letter of the law. However, many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, and the argument could be made that, if a permit holder is looking for and sees a sign, and studies it long enough to determine it does not meet specifications and is therefore nonbinding, he nevertheless cannot fail to infer its intent, and thus, due to a court decision, such a sign could be held to be as binding as an oral statement that concealed weapons are not welcome, which does not have to be a recitation of the exact text of the notice.

Civil liberties

It has been argued by some that requiring individuals to have a permit in order to legally carry is unconstitutional. In their December 2004 article "Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?", the gun rights organization Gun Owners of America argues...

"Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right"

The article then goes on to cite an example of a United States Supreme Court ruling in regard to the First Amendment:

"The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers — even if such material is "communist political propaganda."

Proponents of carry permits state that a "shall-issue" permit policy does not deter people who wish to acquire a permit and carry concealed, much like obtaining and maintaining a driver's license does not deter those who wish to operate a motor vehicle, which has been legally construed as another class of deadly weapon in virtually all regards. Proponents also point to lower instances of gun crime among permit holders than other gun owners, and state that a concealed carry permit (in a state which requires a training course and proficiency test) validates the permit holder as having attained a sufficient level of competence and knowledge of responsibilities as a gun owner; therefore carry permits are a positive aspect of firearm ownership.

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the debate outside of journals, writing books, blogs, and having debates on the subject.

The effect of various concealed carry laws are the subject of past and present research. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, pro-gun scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown some statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"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."[13]

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[14] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law.[15]

Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[16][13]

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[17] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[18]


Permit issue policies

State laws and policies relating to the issuance of concealed carry permits generally fall into various categories depending on their guidelines. These are typically described as may-issue, shall-issue, no-issue, and unrestricted.

May-issue

A may-issue jurisdiction, within the context of gun law, is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the police): the law typically states that a granting authority may-issue a permit if various criteria are met. A jurisdiction that is de jure a may-issue region may de facto range anywhere from no-issue to shall-issue.

U.S. states such as California and New York give wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In California the usual issuance of the permits ranges from a no-issue policy, such as San Francisco, to an almost shall-issue environment, like Orange County. Iowa has a similar distribution, but unlike California, most counties have lenient policies.

In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is theoretically possible to get but in reality it takes a large degree of money, political influence, and/or celebrity to get one. Examples of current and past New York City permit holders would be Senator Charles Schumer, Robert DeNiro, Don Imus, Howard Stern, Ronald Lauder, Edgar Bronfman Sr., Donald Trump, William F. Buckley Jr., Harvey Keitel, Joan Rivers, Arthur Sulzberger, and Bill Cosby.

This category also includes states where authorities have very limited discretion in permit issuance, such as Connecticut.

Maryland law contains provisions for citizens to apply for a concealed carry permit but in reality only those with political or police connections can get one. (making it effectively a no-issue state).

Alabama is by law a may-issue state, but as of 2006 all Alabama county sheriffs issue permits to almost all qualified applicants, making it shall-issue in practice.[19]

Shall-issue

A shall-issue jurisdiction, within the context of gun law, is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits. Such laws typically state that a granting authority shall-issue a permit if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws where the authority may-issue a permit at their discretion.

Typical permit requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a background check, attending a certified handgun/firearms safety class, participating in a range check before a certified trainer (for demonstrating safe firearms handling, while shooting at a target with a handgun), and paying the required fee (if any). These requirements vary by jurisdiction; for example, Georgia has no safety certification requirement or range check.

The following are undisputed shall-issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Alaska is both a shall-issue and an unrestricted state. Alaska does not require a permit for any law-abiding individual to carry a handgun, either openly or concealed, within the state's borders. However, the state continues to issue permits to any of its residents who meet the state's issuance criteria, which can be helpful for Alaskans traveling to other states.

The status of Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa is in some dispute among gun rights activists. The laws of all three states, strictly speaking, would place them in the may-issue category, as permit issue is to some degree discretionary. However, the policies of these states are effectively shall-issue.

No-issue

A no-issue jurisdiction, within the context of gun law, is one that does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized).

As of December 2007 in the United States, only Illinois and Wisconsin are no-issue jurisdictions. Nebraska and Kansas have passed concealed carry laws which took effect on January 1st, 2007. Wisconsin, Kansas, Virginia and Nebraska all permit unlicenced open carry, subject to county and municipal restrictions.

Unrestricted

An unrestricted jurisdiction, in the terminology of firearm laws, is one where no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun.

Currently, among U.S. states, only Alaska and Vermont allow the general public to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

Alaska is both unrestricted and a shall-issue state as it continues to automatically issue carry permits to all residents who meet that state's issuance criteria; this is done primarily for permitting residents to legally carry in states that recognize permits from Alaska.

Vermont is unique in that permits are not required for carry concealed or unconcealed for resident and non-resident alike. Vermont has no statutes concerning concealed carry, nor is there a specific statute that allows it. In the absence of a statute that prohibits it, then it is taken that there is no law against it.

Statistics

Statistics published by the various states give some indication of what type, and how many people, acquire permits to carry concealed weapons. Permit-holders are predominantly male. For example, while over 60,000 women were licensed in Florida as of June 2007, 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[20] Recently, the number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[21] Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since adopting the law, and has had more than 400,000 currently-licensed permit holders as of June 2007.[22]

Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the adult population. Florida reports 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small; North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[23]

See also

References

  1. ^ Law Abiding Citizens Trained in Firearm Use Should Be Allowed the Right to Protect Themselves at Any Time
  2. ^ Vermont gun laws (PDF)
  3. ^ Alaska gun laws (PDF)
  4. ^ Wisconsin gun laws (PDF)
  5. ^ Illinois gun laws (PDF)
  6. ^ District of Columbia gun laws (PDF)
  7. ^ Wichita Eagle, "Signs banning guns dominate hearing", October 11, 2006.
  8. ^ Texas Penal code Section 46.02
  9. ^ Texas gun laws (PDF)
  10. ^ Virginia gun laws (PDF)
  11. ^ Pennsylvania gun laws (PDF)
  12. ^ Texas Department Of Public Safety - 30.06 Sign Posting
  13. ^ a b Tennessee Law Review, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?", 1994.
  14. ^ Frank Espohl. "The right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense". Southern Illinois University Law Journal.
  15. ^ Republicans torn over gun legislation, Terri Langford, Houston Chronicle, May 8, 2007
  16. ^ Gary A. Mauser, Simon Fraser University, Don B. Kates, retired; Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence
  17. ^ Brandon S. Centerwall, University of Washington, Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980
  18. ^ Brandon S. Centerwall, University of Washington, Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980
  19. ^ http://www.packing.org/state/alabama/
  20. ^ License Holder Profile Report, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2007
  21. ^ 2005-2006 CCW Annual Report, Michigan State Police
  22. ^ Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report - October 1, 1987 to June 30, 2007, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2007
  23. ^ North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Statistics by County - 12/01/1995 thru 09/30/2004, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

Further reading

  • 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies.
  • 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies.
  • 1998 John Lott, “The Concealed-Handgun Debate.” Journal of Legal Studies.
  • 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI).
  • 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI).
  • 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review.
  • 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, “Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,” Stanford Law Review.
  • 2003 Ayres and Donohue, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States&oldid=183501932"