Talk:Constitutional carry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NPOV[edit]

Just an FYI, I'm going to be doing some heavy editing of this article, mainly due to NPOV considerations.

The term, "Constitutional Carry," is an extremely loaded term, and there are significant groups of people who do not believe that unrestricted carry of firearms is not protected by the United States Constitution. This term is primarily used by Gun-Rights advocates, and as a loaded term, should not be used as the primary term in the article.

The term "unrestricted carry" does not carry ideological baggage, and the article should be modified to remove bias.

--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your own bias is showing. No US state has "unrestricted carry." Every single one of them restricts carry by children, felons, the mentally ill, drunk abusers and so forth. Every single ons of them restricts carry in certain locations. Your use of the term "unrestricted carry" is an attempt to impose a false image of exaggerated laxity.
"Constitutional carry" is the term that has been used for decades now to describe laws that allow concealed carry of weapons without the requirement that the carrier possess a state-issued license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.210.174 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Using NPOV to claim an articles name is biased does not necessarily make it so. Allow me to present a counter argument:

To debate the status of Constitutional Carry as an established proper noun for this class of legislation or movement by pro-gun groups is disingenuous to readers, and in its self a possible bias. Using the term “Unrestricted Carry “ is just as loaded because it implies that even the most common restriction prohibiting violent criminals from carrying a firearm, is allowed under such legislation, when it is not. Furthermore those from the anti-gun persuasion also acknowledge the term “Constitutional Carry” as a term for this type of bill.

The main reason this is being changed back is because “Unrestricted Carry” is not an accurate way of describing this class of legislation that has been proposed and passed in some states. Many states and localities still have authority to, and do, restrict carry in specific locations, to non-residents, and to ineligible individuals such as felons, even after constitutional carry is passed. Thus the term cannot be used as a standalone term to define this class of legislation or this article. Additionally, there does not seem to be another commonly used term to define this class of legislation which we can title this article.

Groups or organizations can name their movement or ideas with the possibility that the name they choose is going to be disputed or controversial. That does not mean that their choice of name wont at some point become a recognized title or proper noun for their subject regardless of the Etymological underpinnings, or that acknowledging title with a disputed Etymologic background in an encyclopedia article is inherently biased.

A quick web search will reveal that several news outlets including the AP, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel have recognized the title “Constitutional Carry” in their reporting as a phrase relating to this class of legislation [2] [3] [4], while few, if any (I could not fine one), have used “Unrestricted Carry”.

Therefore there was insufficient justification, to change the title of this article and I have changed the references in the article and will be changing the title back shortly.

Additional thoughts and suggestions for review and discussion:

1. If the terminology issue continues to be a point of contention, perhaps we could clarify that dispute it in a section of the article.

2. Is constitutional carry encompassing of both concealed and open carry? Most of the proposals I have read only modify the permit statute of said state to make it optional, thus mostly impacting concealed carry. In states with loose open carry laws it may not make a difference, but isn't the legislative initiative on the end of eliminating the requirement of a permit, while leaving other laws and intact. I will research this further. We may need to remove the open carry reference in the first paragraph, and further address the substance of the article.

[1] http://tucsoncitizen.com/tucson-progressive/2011/01/09/stop-gun-violence-hows-that-constitutional-carry-law-workin-for-ya-now-video/

[2] The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51308129

[3]Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MWSB&p_theme=mwsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=137C804D80DBD558&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[4]Associated Press: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/16/arizona-allow-concealed-weapons-permit/

WikiRJF (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My main point is that no matter what the media chooses to call it, the term is still misleading and inaccurate. In the United States, the final authority in determining whether or not legislation is Constitutional is the United States Supreme Court [naturally barring, of course, amendment to the Constitution]. And in District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court held that: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
For that reason, it is my strong belief that the United States Constitution, based on the clear and concise reasoning of the US Supreme Court, does not offer protection for what is termed "constitutional carry" in this entry. To keep the language as is would be misleading; encyclopedias are academic projects, and academia in it's ideal strives for clear, accurate and impartial language when dealing with technical matters of Law.
--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Vermont Constitutional Carry was based on the Vermont State Constitution right to keep and bear arms provision, not on Amendment II to the US Constitution. My home state Tennessee State Constitution RKBA reserves to the legislature the authority to regulate the public wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime, with minimum inconvenience to lawful use of arms. Currently that is by outlawing carry for offense, and allowing carry for defense with a permit. If the state decides to allow carry for defense without a permit, as Constitutional Carry, it would be under Tennessee State Constitution Article I Section 26 right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. While "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues", concealed weapons permissions have also been upheld under the Federal Second Amendment and under state RKBA provisions. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur. See The New Hampshire HB 536 (current pending legislation for 2012) as well as Georgia HB 679 dubbed the "Constitutional Carry Act". (Also pending legislation for 2012.) Also see: http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-14805-it-is-not-just-nik-clarks-.html. Using the currently-favored term is not a matter of POV, it is a matter timeliness. WP is not a time capsule. We need to keep current. BobbieCharlton (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"The phrase "constitutional carry" reflects the view that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution permits no restrictions or other regulations on gun ownership..."

This sentence does not accurately describe the viewpoint, rather the opening sentence more accurately reflects it.

"In the United States, the term constitutional carry is a neologism for the legal carrying of handgun, either openly or concealed, without the requirement of a government permit."

The view point it reflects is that, because keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right, by definition it is unconstitutional to require a permit to exercise that right. Basically to require a permit is to require permission to exercise a right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.160.234 (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this debate is dated, but I disagree with the term "constitutional carry", because it implies that states without "constitutional carry" are in violation of the constitution. As of now, there is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a permit to carry a firearm. I would suggest the term "permitless carry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 (talkcontribs) 08:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally this would be like naming the article on the estate tax "death tax". Literally just a meaningless loaded term rightists made up as a means of propaganda for their desired policy positions (which are in no way required by the constitution, and in any such case have never been ruled to be required). But it's the name of the article? Why don't we rename the article on "pro-life" movement the "anti-choice" movement. It is depressing to see that the propaganda of rightist ideology so thoroughly has infiltrated society that this has stood for over a decade with no correction.2601:140:8980:106F:C850:D84:9F23:F4F1 (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization of article[edit]

I have made a few changes with the arrangement of this article.

I have split the first section into two sections. Section 1 is now "U.S. States that have implemented Constitutional Carry," while Section 2 is now "U.S. States that do not require a license to carry but have limitations for unlicensed open and/or concealed carry." I think the second section is necessary for states that have some circumstances in which one can carry both openly and concealed without a license, but have a significant restriction on that right (e.g. not applicable in certain areas of the state or the weapon must be unloaded). These are the "almost" Constitutional carry states.

I have also merged the former sections 2 (U.S. States considering Constitutional Carry) and 3 (U.S. States with legislation that did not become law). These sections have been merged into one section, called "Other U.S. States that have introduced legislation for Constitutional Carry." There is no need for two different sections for these states. As legislatures debate bills, a state could potentially move from one section to another, or perhaps need to be included in both. In fact, Kentucky was listed in both sections, and the information was nearly the same in both sections.

So to summarize, as of September 2013, there are three sections:

  • U.S. States that have implemented Constitutional Carry
  • U.S. States that do not require a license to carry but have limitations for unlicensed open and/or concealed carry
  • Other U.S. States that have introduced legislation for Constitutional Carry

I have also alphabetized the list of states in each section.Mdak06 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I might suggest that both Idaho and Wyoming fall under the provisions of bullet point #2, since 99.4% of the qualified US population is prohibited by state law from permitless carry in those two states. Pongo000 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per request Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)



Constitutional CarryConstitutional carry – Currently the sentence case version is redirecting to the uppercase version, but, per the WP:TITLEFORMAT policy, article titles should be in sentence case. Putting it in uppercase gives the notion of constitutional carry WP:UNDUE weight. The majority of WP:RS use sentence case when referring to the topic. Lightbreather (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the sources I've seen, a few of them do capitalize the term, but but many - probably most - do not. I support this change. --Mdak06 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Red Slash 17:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing section 4 U.S. States that have introduced but not passed constitutional carry legislation[edit]

I propose we remove section 4 U.S. States that have introduced but not passed constitutional carry legislation. The reason is that it is not very notable and Wikipedia is also not a news site that needs to report on progress of legislation. Once it has passed and become law, then it's notable, but otherwise, it's a waste of (outdated) space. Thoughts? Terrorist96 (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • As explained at WP:NNC, the contents of an article don't have to be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term -- that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. With that being said, I agree that it would be preferable to remove the material about the legislation that has been introduced but not passed. Every year, many gun laws are proposed in many states. Some end up passing, but most don't. And, yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper -- see WP:NOTNEWS. While it would be possible to argue this question either way, I think that for most Wikipedia articles about gun laws, including this one, it's better to leave out proposed laws that have not been enacted. Mudwater (Talk) 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to remove it. If anyone disagrees, voice your opinion here. Terrorist96 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Given the fact that the number of constitutional carry states has significantly increased in the past five years, I have no objection. When this article was initially created it would not have been much of an article without the attempts. As of now (with 9 states having a form of constitutional carry) and several other "partial" states, I have no strong objection to the deletion of that section.
I will also concede that it is true that many, many bills are introduced each year. If there is interest in revising this section, it could be done with the stipulation that only bills that proposed permitless carry and passed at least one legislative house body be mentioned (since that is significant progress beyond the introduction of a bill). Mdak06 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Mississippi Bill in 2016[edit]

Note (4/15/16) Passed and now signed into law (http://www.wdam.com/story/31736352/gov-bryant-signs-church-protection-act). Please update accordingly. This appears to be near full permitless carry due to the provision for holstered carry, which is the primary method of concealed carry). Kindly update accordingly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.194.27 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A question for everyone:

Mississippi has a bill (HB 786) that has passed their House, may pass their Senate, and if it gets to the governor is likely to be signed.

In it, it amends the portion of the code that lays out the requirements for a pistol/revolver license to include this bit at the end:

(24) No license shall be required under this section for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster or carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.

The "purse, handbag, satchel..." part is already law. The new part would be the "sheath, belt holster, or shoulder holster" bit.

There is a guns.com article that describes it as a "constitutional carry" bill. I think that despite being awfully close, it still isn't actually constitutional carry, because you could still run afoul of the law if you wore an undershirt that contains a holster pocket, or simply carried an unholstered firearm in your back pants pocket.

What do you think? Mdak06 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a definition of 'sheath'? It might be the case that non- belt or shoulder holster carry would be covered under the term 'sheath' (however, I've never heard of the term 'sheath' used in connection to a pistol. Perhaps, it might be thought of as similar to one of those slip on/off rifle 'cases'.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.194.27 (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it definitely counts as constitutional carry and should be added. We can put a disclaimer the same way we have disclaimers for Idaho and Wyoming. Terrorist96 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Given that some other news outlets/blogs/etc. are calling it constitutional/permitless carry, I guess we'll have to as well. Perhaps labeling it as "ambiguous" the way that Arkansas is labeled "disputed" would work? It only exempts specific types of containers, and does not simply exempt any form of concealment.
IMO, these carrying methods are open to interpretation under this law (regarding whether a permit is required or not):
  • belly band holsters (is this a "belt holster" or not?)
  • undershirt holsters (is this a "shoulder holster" or not?)
  • bra holsters (is this a "shoulder holster" or not?)
Under the law, I think these carrying methods would still require a permit:
  • concealed ankle holster (unless covered under "sheath")
  • carrying w/o a holster in one's back pocket
  • Mexican carry
In short, I think they wrote the law poorly. I'm not sure if "sheath" is defined elsewhere in the code or not. I guess the bottom line is that if others are calling it Constitutional carry, it makes sense for us to do so, even if it is somewhat misleading. Mdak06 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I woould prefering to make residenzler only states as idaho and wyoming only light green in this art.

http://www.bilderload.com/bild/383117/openandhidetLYTDD.jpg

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Limited" Constitutional Carry[edit]

There is a category (unsourced) called "Limited Constitutional Carry." It's unclear exactly what "limited" means in this context, as every state that has "constitutional carry" has restrictions that limit where an individual may carry. There is also some ambiguity as to what state(s) are considered "limited." For instance, Montana is shown as "limited" because it restricts carry in 0.6% of the state (mainly cities and towns, a few other places such as logging camps). Yet, Idaho and Wyoming carry no such tag, despite the fact that constitutional carry is only available to residents of those two states. So, here we have Montana, which permits carry for 100% of the qualified US population, while collectively, both Idaho and Wyoming restrict carry to approximately 0.6% of the qualified US population.

It would be great if the term "limited" was either removed completely (since all states with constitutional carry impose limits on where one can carry), or apply the term more fairly to states that have onerous restrictions on constitutional carry (such as Idaho and Wyoming). Pongo000 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

New Hampshire[edit]

NH just passed SB12, moving them to constitutional carry.[1]

I am assuming we should wait until the governor signs it before updating the article.

That all being said - would one consider NRA-ILA a good/neutral source? I linked one article above as an example.

-Deathsythe (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be added when the governor signs it. NRA is an acceptable source.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

References

North Dakota[edit]

So it seems like ND may soon be a constitutional carry state. However there's one issue: under the proposed bill, you would still need a license to open carry. We define constitutional carry as not needing a license to carry, either concealed or openly. Should this count as a constitutional carry state, or should it be put under the states with limited forms of constitutional carry?Terrorist96 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Illinois - Limited Permitless Carry[edit]

Technically under the ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in PEOPLE v. DIGGINS (2009) puts Illinois in a spot where theoretically it is legal to conceal a unloaded handgun as long as it's in a "case", which the court ruled to be pretty much anything that fully encloses another item and can be fully sealed which is ruled included even glove boxes and center consoles of cars; So under that ruling it's lawful to carry a unloaded handgun in Illinois as long as it's in some type of case which would include carrying it in a tablet case, or even the soft case that comes with some firearms like the Ruger LCP. --Thegunkid (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't include such limited forms of carry on this list, otherwise nearly every single state would need to be added.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Then why is New Mexico included considering the fact it has essentially the same exemption (unloaded concealed carry)? --Thegunkid (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The difference with NM is that it allows unloaded concealed carry on your person (actual carry) anywhere (in general) whereas Illinois it has to be unloaded and cased (not carried). Many states also allow loaded concealed carry without a permit on your own property, business, etc. but we don't count those. For example, in Virginia it's legal to have a loaded concealed handgun in your car's glove box without a permit. And I believe almost every state, if not every state, allows for possessing an unloaded firearm in a case without a permit.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There's been multiple court rulings in the past 20 years from the State of Illinois that you are allowed to carry a unloaded firearm as long as it's unloaded and fully "encased"; with the Supreme Court ruling stating that anything that fully encloses an item, and zips, latches, snaps or buckles shut, legally constitutes a "case" per se; I.E. a unloaded gun, in a fanny pack constitutes a encased firearm thus exempt from needing a license to conceal carry. This was first brought to light by 1996 court ruling regarding a woman who was caught with a gun in her purse in a metal detector at an entrance to a court house, but because it was zipped up the State Court threw out the case; This lead to a trend in the 2000s called fanny pack carry which resulting in several arrests; with every single case reported on thrown out at the trial level. By the way an interesting note in the supreme court ruling is that the state argued in that the defendant's conduct was illegal specifically because he WASN'T CARRYING the handgun at the time of his arrest because he had it in his center console and not in a case he was carrying.

And to add, In Texas until 2005 it was explicitly, and 2007 technically, illegal to have a handgun in your vehicle even if it was unloaded and encased unless you were going from point A to point B; And In Nebraska as of 2016 it is technically illegal to transport a gun in a case, even unloaded, per a Supreme Court ruling on concealed firearms. --Thegunkid (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

South Dakota becomes a Constitutional Carry state on July 1.[edit]

https://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Gov-Kristi-Noem-signs-constitutional-carry-bill-into-law-505145611.html 173.168.246.144 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Is an animated map really appropriate?[edit]

I'm sorry but having an animated map as the main map on the article really isn't that reader friendly as one has to wait over half a minute to see the current state of carry licensing in the United States when it better serves to have it set aside with a static map of the current state of things like on the Open Carry Page Thegunkid (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)