Difference between revisions of "Concealed carry in the United States"

From Gunsopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Training)
 
m (1 revision)

Revision as of 15:21, 15 March 2013

In the United States, carrying a 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 weapons depends on the state; some states restrict the weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or 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 License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LCTF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), and similar.

Although the current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, 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) has reversed its decision. As of February 2008, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry[1] (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and about half provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction, and the District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976, this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the US Supreme Court.[2]

Contents

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". It is so named because Florida gained national attention for adopting this policy in 1987, leading to citizens of other states advocating similar measures, even though this practice had been adopted in Washington state in 1961.[3]

Nine states have "may issue" or "discretionary issue" laws requiring the applicant to demonstrate specific "need".[1] In practice, this is often a mechanism to deny licensing.

These "may issue" states range from "shall issue" in practice, such as Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa[1]; 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.[4]

Two states, Vermont[5] and Alaska,[6] 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[7] and Illinois[8]) and Washington D.C.[9] have no provision for legal concealed-carry. Legislation was passed in 2004 and again in 2005 in Wisconsin, but was vetoed by the governor. There are currently movements in each of these states to pass concealed-carry laws. Illinoiscarry.com [1] is a website dedicated to the advancement of conceal and carry and the Second Amendment in Illinois. Conceal and carry bills are introduced every year in Illinois, but usually fail to make it out of committee. Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Chicago) has vowed to veto any such legislation that makes it to his desk. On March 11, 2008, nearly 2,500 Illinois gun owners marched on the capitol in Springfield, as part of IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day) and demanded a conceal and carry provision and also called for an end to more gun control. On March 23, 2006, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Kathleen Sebelius's veto and enacted a concealed-carry law effective July 1.[10] The District of Columbia is "no-issue" in accordance with its prior blanket ban on most firearms, including a total ban on ownership and possession of handguns and a requirement that long guns be kept locked or disassembled. The ban on total ownership and the requirement for keeping self-defense guns locked and disassembled was overturned in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, but it is unlikely that the decision against the District will result in a compulsion to allow concealed carry.

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.[11] While 37 states have reciprocity agreements with at least one other state and several states honor all out-of-state concealed carry permits, some states have special requirements like training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not honor permits from states that do not have such requirements for issue. Some states make exceptions for persons under the minimum age (usually 21) if they are active members of the military or a police force. States that do not have this exemption generally do not recognize any license from states that do.

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, and the United States Senate (S. 388) has introduced similar legislation. However, opponents of national reciprocity have pointed out that his legislation would effectively require states with higher standards of permit issuance (training courses, safety exams, good cause, etc.) to honor permits from states with more liberal issuance policies, and states that do not currently allow concealed handgun carry would be required to allow it (which, as those states have no restrictions other than the total ban, would have no means to restrict concealed carry by out-of-state holders, as even the issuing states do). Most proposed federal reciprocity legislation contains no provisions to prevent someone whose concealed carry permit has been revoked or suspended in one state from obtaining one in another state. For these and various other reasons, members of Congress representing urban areas have consistently managed to prevent such legislation from being enacted.

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

Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include 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 gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.

Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "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 and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such 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 generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.[12]

Concealed Weapon legal issues

Legal liability

Liability is present where the licensee brandishes the weapon, threatens use, or exacerbates a volatile situation, or when the licensee is carrying while intoxicated. 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[13].

However, increased passage of "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 in some juridictions; the user must reasonably believe that nothing short of deadly force will protect the life or property at stake in a situation. And even with Castle Doctrine laws in place civil liabilities for errors that cause harm to another still exist, although civil immunity is provided in the Castle Doctrine laws of some states, e.g, Texas.[14]

Some CCW holders in the United States have elected since 2006 to switch from carrying hollow-point bullets and especially 10mm Auto caliber weapons to instead favor carrying smaller caliber weapons after the conviction of retired school teacher Harold Fish in Arizona for second degree murder during a self-defense shooting. His conviction for killing a homeless man with a history of mental instability who attacked him while hiking on a remote trail was obtained through a jury trial by stressing Fish overreacted through choosing to use the increased stopping power of 10 mm hollow point bullets. State law in Arizona has subsequently been changed, such that the state now has the burden to prove that a self defense shooting was not in self defense, whereas the burden previously before the Fish incident was that the shooter on trial had to prove that the shooting was in fact done in self defense. Meanwhile, many CCW holders have elected to switch to carrying handguns loaded with FMJ bullets in calibers smaller than 10 mm. A choice often advocated for selecting the correct stopping power in CCW training classes is to select to use the exact same type of bullets (FMJ or hollow point), in the exact same caliber that are used by the local police, to avoid being accused of overreacting during any self defense post-incident trial. [2]

Carry in vehicles

Each state has unique requirements with respect to the manner in which a non-permit-holder may carry a weapon such as a handgun in a vehicle, concealed or otherwise. Some states, even those where unlicensed open or concealed carry is illegal, allow a handgun to be kept in a personal vehicle concealed without a permit.[15] Some states, such as South Carolina, require a concealed handgun to be in the glove compartment.[16]

Other states, such as Florida, have no restrictions as to the location of a concealed handgun for those without a CCW permit as long as it is "securely encased" (i.e., in a snapped holster, among other options) and that it is not on one's person (i.e., not in the person's manual possession). This does not alter the person's right to concealed carry on one's person outside the car unless one holds a valid CCW permit. In Florida, it is illegal if a handgun is visible and in an unsnapped holster inside a car.[17] On the other hand, for holders of a valid CCW permit in Florida, it is legal to have a weapon concealed on one's person while inside one's private conveyance (vehicle, car, aircraft, or boat), or concealed in one's private conveyance, whether or not a snapped holster is used.

In Texas, non-permit-holders may possess a weapon that is concealed in any fashion, including on their person, when in a motor vehicle. 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 or travelling directly between their home and a vehicle they own or legally possess. The exceptions are if the weapon is in plain sight (violating an outright ban on open carry in the state), or when the person is a known gang member or cannot otherwise legally possess a weapon.[15] [18]

Other states such as California do not allow a firearm to be kept accessible by the driver or any passenger without a permit, but allow transport of lawfully-possessed weapons in a secured area of the vehicle such as the trunk.[19] California also requires that handguns being transported in the vehicle passenger area must be unloaded and locked in a completely enclosed container.[19] [3]

This doctrine 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 traveling is exempt from the statute, but the definition of "traveling" was vague and based on case law, allowing officers to arrest those found with handguns in their vehicles as an intimidation or discrimination tactic, thus forcing the accused to defend their actions as legal instead of the State being forced to prove the action was illegal.

The general guideline is that laws regarding concealed carry of firearms in vehicles vary from state to state, and even within some jurisdictions within a given state, for those states in which state laws do not include pre-emption over local ordinances regarding firearms.

Politics

Main article: Gun politics

Laws

Typical policies that are utilized to determine who can legally carry concealed weapons are prohibition of concealed carry, discretionary licensing, non-discretionary licensing, and minimum age requirements (e.g., 18 or 21 years). Less common is unregulated, legal concealed carry such as in Vermont and Alaska.

Weapon possession, in the context of concealed weapons, is a crime of that circumstance in which a person who is not legally authorized 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.

Depending on state law, it can also apply to concealed carry of illegal knives such as stilettos or switchblades.

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, sporting events).

Many states prohibit unlicensed carry, whether otherwise allowed or not, on the grounds of a business that sells alcohol. 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.[15] 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.[20] 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.[21] In many states, such as Arizona, a law-abiding permit holder may not carry in any establishment licensed to dispense alcohol for on-premises for consumption, such as a bar or a restaurant that serves alcohol. 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 (e.g., Kansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, Texas), 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."[22]

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 considered a misnomer unless the prohibition is 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 by the lawful owner or controller of the property that a person is not welcome and should leave. This notice can be given to anyone for any reason, including due to the carrying of firearms by that person, and refusal to heed such a request to leave constitutes trespassing. Trespass by a holder of a concealed-carry license may or may not have more severe penalties than "simple" trespass, depending on the jurisdiction.

Support

Proponents state a property owner has the right to ban carry of concealed weapons on their property, for any reason or no reason. This is similar to many decisions a business or property owner can make regarding actions taken on the property, such as dress code, eating, drinking, alcohol consumption, smoking, and skating/skateboarding.

In addition, signage acts to limit liability of the property owner. By posting signs encouraging, discouraging, requiring or prohibiting an action, the business not only influences actions in its favor, but largely avails itself of liability as the harm was caused by the individual's failure to heed the notice, placing the individual at fault for his action. Legal precedent both supports and refutes this argument depending on the severity and nature of the situation, and on State law governing the posting of such signs.

Opposition

"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested[23]. Opponents state these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also in fact harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed.

Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.

Grey zones

In some situations, business owners post signs that appear to prohibit guns, but because the signs do not meet State or local law defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign, the sign does not carry the force of law and a permit holder can legally ignore it.

In Texas, for example, the specifications of a Section 30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry are clearly defined, and only a sign meeting the specifications carries the force of the section. A sign, for example, that depicts the silhouette of a gun with a red circle and slash (similar to other signs prohibiting an action), that simply says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED", is too small, has incorrect text, or is not placed prominently can technically be ignored as it doesn't fulfill the requirements to ban permit holders from carrying concealed. Many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, but such is explicitly taught by the state licensed concealed carry instructors.

Conversely, the intent of posting such a sign may only be to discourage entry while carrying by those unfamiliar with the law, which (almost by definition) typically includes only those not licensed to carry concealed handguns. Because a licensee is trained to recognize a valid sign and differentiate it from a nonbinding sign, posting an invalid sign for this purpose serves as a form of doublespeak, reassuring patrons who oppose concealed carry while at the same time not actually prohibiting concealed carry.

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 claim carry permits are a positive aspect of firearm ownership as there are lower instances of gun crime among permit holders than other gun owners,[1] and concealed carry permit training courses and proficiency tests validate a sufficient level of competence and knowledge of responsibilities as a gun owner. A known counterargument is the claim that the actual criminals choose not to obtain permits and as such render the permits unnecessary.

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies and papers published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the discussion to books, blogs, and oral debates.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, pro-gun scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown 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. The possible reasons for this rise in property crime are twofold:

  • Property crimes include trespassing, and concealed-carry statutes that include prohibited-area laws introduce the possibility of trespass where the individual would otherwise be in violation of a weapons law by carrying concealed (e.g. unlawful carry) or would not carry and be lawful.
  • Concealed carry allows potential victims of violent crime to prevent such crime; as a result, the assailant, if not fatally shot, is instead charged with a property crime such as burglary instead of homicide.

In both cases, crime is reduced overall, and criminal activity that does occur is recategorized as to type and severity because of the effects of the change in law.

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."[24]

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,[25] 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.[26] 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 that came into effect in 1995.[27]

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.[28][24]

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."[29] 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."[29]

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.[3]

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 as most counties are rural. There is a strong movement in Iowa to change the system to shall-issue due to the capricious nature of a county-by-county system. It may end up in a court case because of 14th amendment equal protection issues.

In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is allowed by law, but typically takes a large degree of money, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain one. Examples of current and past New York City permit holders are 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. [30]

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.[1]

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/qualification before a certified trainer (for demonstrating safe firearms handling and practical proficiency), and paying the required fee (if any). Minnesota is a classic "shall issue" state. [31]

Requirements also include certification that a person has never been diagnosed with a "mental illness," which include any condition which interferes with "normal life--" including trauma from being victim of prior crimes, or for which the person was diagnosed prior to the passage of the law.

These requirements vary by jurisdiction; for example, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington (with well over a million permit holders among them) have 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. [32]

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 for reciprocity reasons; Alaska residents can carry, with a permit, while in other states that recognize the Alaska concealed-carry license.

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, these states are effectively "shall-issue" in practice as agency policies direct the issuing body to approve an applicant who has met statutory requirements.

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. The District of Columbia is also "no-issue", and in fact forbids possession or ownership of a handgun within the District, except those grandfathered in before the 1976 ordinance went into effect. However, this law was struck down in the Heller case; the details of how DC residents may own, and possibly carry, weapons are still being worked out (as of July 2008).

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.[33][34]

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. Since Vermont does not issue permits, its residents are unable to legally carry concealed in other states that would normally recognize out-of-state permit holders unless they hold some other state's permit.

Statistics

Some (but not all) states publish statistics indicating how many people acquire permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. Reported 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.[35] The number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[36] 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.[37]

Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the overall state adult population. In Florida, 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.[38]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4200 permits for any reason. [39]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Right-to-Carry 2007 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
  2. ↑ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws Dave Kopel, Clayton E. Cramer; 1994-10-17; Independence Institute
  4. ↑ Law Abiding Citizens Trained in Firearm Use Should Be Allowed the Right to Protect Themselves at Any Time
  5. ↑ "It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man." NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for Vermont
  6. ↑ "Any person 21 years of age or older may carry a handgun concealed on their person provided that, when contacted by a police officer, informs the officer of that possession and allows the police officer to secure the handgun for the duration of that contact." NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for Alaska
  7. ↑ Wisconsin gun laws (PDF)
  8. ↑ Illinois gun laws (PDF)
  9. ↑ District of Columbia gun laws (PDF)
  10. ↑ Wichita Eagle, "Signs banning guns dominate hearing", October 11, 2006.
  11. ↑ Conceal and Carry (CCW) Laws by State on CarryConcealed.net
  12. ↑ Florida Statute 790
  13. ↑ LaFeve, Principles of Criminal Law sec. 9.4
  14. ↑ Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY, http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.HTM
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for Texas NRA-Institute for Legislative Action
  16. ↑ NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for South Carolina NRA-Institute for Legislative Action
  17. ↑ Florida Statute 790.053
  18. ↑ Texas Penal code Section 46.02
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for California NRA-Institute for Legislative Action
  20. ↑ Virginia gun laws (PDF)
  21. ↑ Pennsylvania gun laws (PDF)
  22. ↑ Texas Department Of Public Safety - 30.06 Sign Posting
  23. ↑ JournalStar.com - Lincoln, Nebraska - Local
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Tennessee Law Review, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?", 1994.
  25. ↑ The right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense Frank Espohl; Southern Illinois University Law Journal
  26. ↑ Suprynowicz, Vin (1999). Send in the Waco Killers -- Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998. Mountain Media, 384. “The Florida tourist-shooting epidemic is also relevant in another way. Once the airport rental lots started removing their big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers, Florida's 'tourist-murder crime wave' disappeared virtually overnight. (Because criminals rightly figured that out-of-town tourists weren't armed like the Floridians were.)”
  27. ↑ Republicans torn over gun legislation, Terri Langford, Houston Chronicle, May 8, 2007
  28. ↑ Gary A. Mauser, Simon Fraser University, Don B. Kates, retired; Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Brandon S. Centerwall, University of Washington, Homicide and the Prevalence of Handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to 1980
  30. ↑ See generally: Kopel and Cramer, supra, 62 Tenn. L. Rev at 684.
  31. ↑ See generally: Joseph E. Olson, THE MINNESOTA CITIZENS’ PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2003: HISTORY AND COMMENTARY, 25 Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy 21 (2003).
  32. ↑ See generally the several appendices to Steven W. Kranz, A SURVEY OF STATE CONCEAL AND CARRY STATUTES: CAN SMALL CHANGES HELP REDUCE THE CONTROVERSY?, 29 Hamline Law Review 638 (2006).
  33. ↑ Alaska Concealed Handgun Permits - Permits and Licensing Unit
  34. ↑ The Vermont Statutes Online
  35. ↑ License Holder Profile Report, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2007
  36. ↑ 2005-2006 CCW Annual Report, Michigan State Police
  37. ↑ 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
  38. ↑ North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Statistics by County - 12/01/1995 through 09/30/2004, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
  39. ↑ http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html (April 13, 2008)


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.

External links

Retrieved from "http://www.gunsopedia.com/index.php?title=Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States&oldid=1435"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox