Talk:Concealed carry in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

/Archive 1


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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

HerbM (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)This still misses the important semantic difference recognized by US Constitutional scholars and the public that the Constitution "grants" NO rights, but merely DELEGATES certain poweers to the government and either explicitly offers protection for existing rights, or reserves those rights not named to the people. The only real argument (under the Constitution) is WHAT is a "right" and what is not. Specifically anything explicitly protected, or generally any right commonly recognized by (most of) the States, is considered a right.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] rtc.gif

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)

I have reverted SaltyBoatr's revision of 16:33, 26 April 2008 for the following reasons:
  • The graphic is a graphical summary / diagram of the progression of concealed carry through the states over the years. The diagram does not advance any new unpublished claims or arguments but merely summarizes existing claims in a diagram. As such, it is explicitly permitted using the Original images section of WP:NOR
  • RTC.gif is licensed to Wikimedia Commons, and is not really different from any Wikipedia editor creating this graphic himself or herself and donating it to the Wikipedia Commons.
  • If the graphic is shown to be wrong or misleading, then it can be removed. But if it is substantially accurate, then it is protected by WP:NOR and should stay. Wikipedia is full of such contributed diagrams that are generated or donated by editors and that have not been explicitly published in a normal reliable source. See the page Pentagon for an example. kevinp2 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That graphic conveys information from the Radical Gun Nuttery! website, and is not an "image" as defined by by WP:OI which provides an exception to WP:NOR for "images (that) generally do not propose unpublished ideas". The rtc.gif "image" most definitely does propose unpublished ideas, (the time line of concealed carry law in the states), published from that website. Subject to WP:V policy, the rtc.gif "image" is not allowed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any kind of dispute about the time line of concealed carry? The year in which a state became a concealed carry state is well known and published, as evidenced by the public debate for every state that has enacted this kind of law. All we have to do is cite the rtd.gif page with links to previously published citations for that state and that year. SaltyBoatr, you seem to be wikilawyering to suppress a useful graphic based upon a distaste for its source. Perhaps you should choose your battles carefully. The graphic is correct and by forcing people to cite every state in every frame, you will waste their time, inevitably lose the battle and lose goodwill. I ask you to please reconsider your stand here. There is no POV here. The graphic illustrates a simple timeline, no more. kevinp2 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
By way of comparison, please see the article Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, one of numerous timeline articles. It even uses the wiki tag timeline kevinp2 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What is your sourcing for your assertion that this graphic is accurate? All I see is the sourcing to the Radical Gun Nuttery! website. When Wikipedia relies on dubious sourcing, like self published websites, our reputation suffers. Use reliable sourcing please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Alas, Wikipedia does not have much of a reputation that would suffer. Self published websites are not automatically dubious. This is a conceit that pervades the publishing world - that because an institution (with its own bias and agenda) publishes something, that information becomes automatically reliable. This particular graphic is accurate. (I notice you are no longer contending that a timeline is an unpublished idea). We can spend a lot of time and energy (that could have been spent on something else) to cite every state in the graphic and prove to you that it is accurate. Is that what you want? I notice that nobody else is asking for this. kevinp2 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Replying to your sentences in order: 1) Wikipedia has a good reputation, proven by the fact that is trusted and widely used globally as a reference, thanks in large part due to adherence to the WP:V policy. 2) So what? Many websites are dubious and you have the burden of proof to show that this website is not dubious. 3) So what? That "conceit" is also found in WP:V. 4) I ask again, what is your sourcing for your assertion that this graphic is accurate? I accept that it might be accurate, but so what? 5) It doesn't matter what kind of idea a timeline might be. 6) I am asking no more than that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What fact-checking reputation does the Radical Gun Nuttery! website have? 7) So what? WP:V is not up to a vote of editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Your response is not very helpful. I am more interested in improving this article and its accuracy rather than fixating upon the badness of Radical Gun Nuttery! WP:OI does in fact protect and even encourage this graphic. I notice that you haven't provided even ONE instance of the graphic being inaccurate. Other editors are in fact entitled to read the relevant policies and weigh in on how to apply them to this graphic. I am confident that other editors will agree that WP:V and WP:OI when read together coherently, permit and encourage this graphic. Your opinion may vary, but bear in mind that if you insist upon taking a policy to an unwarranted extreme in one case, you should be consistent and do the same with all your own edits. kevinp2 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, such image is not acceptable. As per your comment: Alas, Wikipedia does not have much of a reputation that would suffer.. my question would be: why do you bother editing if that is your perception?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) SaltyBoatr requested an opinion on this dispute but failed to mention it here. Here is the link to the Reliable sources Noticeboard.kevinp2 (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The source was "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel, for data up to 1994, the NRA-ILA's research website for data since 1994, personal communication with Clayton Cramer and Jared Coyne as for the status of a few states prior to their adoption of shall-issue laws, and my own personal involvement in shall-issue advocacy for the last ten years.
Would you feel better if I footnoted the page? It is generally recognized as accurate by those who have been involved in the issue. If you have specific data that contradicts my sources, feel free to offer it.
To make it clear - I created the image, from data that is publicly available. I did not put it on this page, though I was asked at the time, and approved its use here. (And later jumped through the hoops to get a Creative Commons Copyright on it, after some admins decided that my having said it was OK wasn't enough.)
I don't claim expertise on much, but on this I do. Others have recognized it - my image has been repeatedly referenced on the Web for the last eight years. Some have offered corrections, and those that have been able to document their corrections have been incorporated. I've had several who argued about definitions, particularly with respect to Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa. The NRA used to list Alabama and Connecticut as shall-issue and Iowa as may-issue. In 2003 they started listing all three as "discretionary-reasonable issue". With respect to Alabama and Connecticut, I understand. They have laws that could be read as being "may-issue", but they are enforced in a way that results in defacto "shall-issue". With respect to Iowa, the NRA is simply wrong. Iowa gives discretion to the sheriff, and some sheriffs issue freely, and others don't issue at all. This makes them no different than California. (I have been in contact with gun rights advocates in Iowa, and trust their judgment as to the nature of the carry permit process more than I do the NRA's.)
In any case, as to whether the image should remain. Why is there a question as to its validity? Is it only because I call the website "www.gun-nuttery.com"?
Would the issues be resolved if I added to my page references as to where my data originated?
--jdege (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Look at the Wikipedia policy about sources and the types of sourcing that is acceptable, click this link WP:Verifiability to read that policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

The "Wild claims" was simply the title of the previous section on the talk page (see above); it had no bearing on this section of the talk page entitled "Carry in vehicles"; this "Wild claims" errata is just a quirk of the format used by Wikipedia software :-) No intent was implied or intended that would imply your edit description was considered "Wild claims" :-) I was just curious if any states actually permitted unrestricted carry within passenger compartments; it might be a good state to consider retiring in someday :-) As I understand it, the requirement for Florida is that the loaded weapon must be "securely encased", which a holster accomplishes, but only if snapped. An unsnapped holster does not meet this requirement. It is worth noting that this does not mean the firearm must be "encased securely". Georgia's laws are slightly different than Florida; formerly, Georgia required a holster other than an IWB (inside waistband) for legality, as the law required a holster resting on one's leg. but the legal wording was changed a few years back, and I believe that the commonly-accepted interpretation now is that an IWB holster is now considered legal for carry in Georgia. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "What states permit the unrestricted carrying of firearms within the passenger compartment?" -- Missouri, for one. (See 571.030 RSMo, subsection 3.) I would imagine Vermont and Alaska allow it as well.
69.179.181.16 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Colorado does as long as it isn't concealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Weapons Laws

(the following discussion was copied from Yaf's talk page Yaf (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Yaf,

Nothing in Florida's code requires a non-permit-holder to conceal a weapon when he or she carries it in a vehicle. I have stopped many people with weapons in their cars and have never arrested anyone for having the weapon displayed openly. Can you cite a source? Here are the applicable sections of the Florida code.

Section 790.25(5), which deals specifically with possession in a private conveyance states that "it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012." (Emphasis added.)

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access." Patchogue (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can. First, the laws are different for long guns than handguns. Long guns can be carried openly with no issues in a vehicle, as you state. The reason for this is to be consistent with Georgia law, which requires the open carry of long guns in vehicles during hunting season, and, since many Florida residents hunt in Georgia, this was done by the Florida legislature long ago to be consistent with Georgia law for Florida and Georgia residents crossing the state line between the two states in vehicles, for reconciliation of hunting season purposes. Second, for handguns, if the handgun is not in a snapped holster, but is in the open, then it is a second degree misdemeanor of "open carrying of weapons", prohibited by F.S. 790.053. On the other hand, if the weapon is concealed within the passenger compartment within ready access, and the person with the concealed weapon does not have a permit either from Florida, or one from another state recognized by Florida, then it it is a third degree felony of carrying a concealed handgun without a permit, prohibited by F.S. 790.06. On the other hand, if the handgun is securely encased, whether in a snapped holster or not, concealed or not, then it is legal again (because it is "securely encased". Then, if the gun is concealed out of sight, it is legal with or without a concealed permit to have the handgun (even if not in a snapped holster) if the handgun is in a glove compartment, a closed purse, a closed briefcase, or a closed center console, again by the "securely encased" portions of the law. And, still again, if the handgun is not in a snapped holster, but is securely enclosed in the trunk, it is legal again, both under Florida law for Florida residents, and additionally, under a 1986 Federal law for travelers passing through the state, as long as their origination and destination local laws permit possession of handguns. On the other hand, having a handgun without it being in a snapped holster but in a cloth bag, although the handgun is concealed, is illegal again. There are lots of technicalities here, which are very difficult to distill down for an encyclopedia article. Also, although I applaud your stance, as it is refreshing to see a police officer who actually knows firearms law, it is entirely different between the stances taken by law officers in the northern, central, and rural areas of the state (which agree with your interpretation) than in the urban areas of the state. Most Orlando, Miami, Ft.Lauderdale, and Dade County policemen would arrest anyone with a shotgun or rifle in an open-carry rack within the passenger compartment of a pickup truck, state law be damned, and a private citizen would need a lawyer to get it (ultimately) resolved favorably :-) As the article had not gone through the lengthy discussions of "in a snapped holster" for handguns vs. open carry for long guns, the concealed aspects of "securely encased" applicable for handguns which are most commonly used for CCW had been given the predominance in the article to date. This is an oversimplification, of course.
All this said, I am not sure how to address the numerous technicalities in the article without confusing readers; it is all very complex. And, our discussion has only involved Florida law. I have not discussed the differences among other states; some, such as Illinois, have county by county by city differences in vehicle carry laws, without any state pre-emption such as in Florida! Any ideas how to address this, without getting readers in trouble with law enforcement officers? -- Yaf (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(end of copying from Yaf's talk page Yaf (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Have attempted to provide a more cogent view of Florida Firearms Law with regards to concealed carry with and without a permit within vehicles. Hopefully, this is more clear now. Yaf (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Non-compliant signs

"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."

I personally know of a few business owners who have intentionally posted non-compliant signs knowing that they have no legal force, because it shut up a few anti-gun loons who'd been complaining about the new law, and would have no effect on the permit holders who they continued to welcome into the establishment.

I have, though, nothing to cite regarding this point. As I understand Wikipedia policy, personal conversations aren't citeable.

HerbM (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) In the state of Texas where there are prescribed requirements for such signs, the law is absolutely clear, and explicitly taught during CHL classes; to wit, "even leaving out a comma or quotation mark" invalidates the legal force of the signage.

OTOH, the current language of the article isn't cited, either, and you could just as easily make the argument that the law is clear, that anyone who posts a non-compliant sign does so knowingly, and their intent is to try to avoid becoming involved in the controversy without turning away permit-holding customers.

So I'm seriously leaning towards truncating the passage after "have yet to be tested in court," since everything after that is speculation and opinion. --jdege (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Fireproeng (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Yaf, standard WP protocol is to not revert source tags without either providing the reference or discussing. Can you tell me the rationale for removing the tags as you did here? Thanks. Fireproeng (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Since the cite was already in the article relative to Florida law, which upon re-writing to provide an example that it was true in Florida, this fact was thus already cited. For clarity, though, I have duplicated this cite for the paragraph in question. Hope this makes it more clear. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. Fireproeng (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Curious

Why Vermont has remained (according to the history .gif map--nice job btw whoever's work that was), very professional--an unrestricted state. I've done some cursory research but found nothing definitive.

HerbM (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)I don't know that anyone *can* tell you "why"; Vermont has had very few if any restrictions on the possession and carrying of firearms (per se), and so far no one has been able to generate enough legislative interest to amend the law as Alaska did (the other direction) to include the possibility of a license (e.g., for reciprocity purposes.) It is clear that Vermont residents had long enjoyed the most liberal firearms regulations BUT are now significantly disadvantaged in terms reciprocity when they travel.

Answer: I don't have citations, or I'd paste the answer into the main body of the article. The essence of the thing is that Vermont has a strong RKBA guarantee built into its state constitution. This guarantee was not challenged until the early 20th century, around 1911 or so, when a city attempted to enact an ordinance implementing a registration/permit scheme. The state supreme court issued an unambiguous ruling stating that the legislature had no business enacting gun laws at all, and the ruling has stood since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.164.153 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)