Talk:Concealed carry in the United States/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Florida reciprocity

I looked at the citation given for the number of states that Florida (Resident) has reciprocity and I count 35, not 37 as stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.225.146 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CA?

CA is a May-issue state, all counties. San Francisco is NOT a "No-Issue". It is just up to the sheriff dept's discretion. It is, however, very hard to get a permit in SF city/county. Last who got one was a Nobel Laureate.

Open carry is technically Legal in all counties, but gun must be unloaded. Police have right to inspect and check guns in public to verify this.

However, it is Not recommended. You will get hassled , possibly arrested on some other, made-up charge. CA is very gun-unfriendly.

Even in AZ, when open-carry loaded has been legal for years, I've never seen it. Unless maybe in a small town like Douglas.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"CCW" vs. "CCP"?

The definition of CCW is the Crime, and needs be defined versus the Permit: CCP or CWP. The initials: "CCW" are Not interchangeable with the concealed carry permit--they don't even Say this. It is important as it is a legal definition.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid point though I am not knowledgeable enough in a global sense about how prevalent certain acronyms are for certain meanings. I know local police in my area used CCW and CDW ("Carrying dangerous/deadly weapon" or "concealed dangerous/deadly weapon") for crimes, whereas HCP or CHP is an informal term for the permit. Be advised there is an article on the crime, Weapon possession (crime).Legitimus (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Terminology varies from state to state. A search of CCW finds reference to CCW permit and/or license (eg, at http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/ConcealedCarry site the pdf for permit application is filenamed CCWApplication). CCW acronym (Carry Concealed Weapon) may refer to illegal or legal carry. CCW is also an acronym for Concealed Carry Weapon (the weapon itself) in some usages. As far as acronym for permit or licence goes, acronyms include THCP (Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit) or TCHL (Texas Concealed Handgun License). Naaman Brown (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

wrt the CA issuing map, can we get one for NY too?

From a recent edit: This county map depicts places with the most permissive and restrictive CCW issuance policies.

As NY is in the same boat with the wide discrepancy in licensing authority, the article, specifically the NY section and the subsequent Gun Laws in New York article, could benefit from such a map as well. Downstate counties, such as Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, as well as NYC and the other surrounding/adjacent counties are very much "no-issue" whereas other counties make it much easier for an average citizen to gain an unrestricted CCW license. -Deathsythe (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Something along the lines of what can be found here would work I imagine. (I cannot access at the moment though, restrictions on my webfilter at work) -Deathsythe (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Opt-out" in Minnesota

From the article:

"Many states (e.g., ... Minnesota, ...) allow private businesses 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."

This is not true. One can be asked to leave a posted location, and if one does not, can be cited for trespass, but one's permit is not in jeapardy, in any case.

Minn. Stat. 624.714 Subdiv. 17a.

Marhault (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected that with citation. Abrothman (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Churches

Why does this article state (in at least 2 locations) that carrying concealed is "generally" prohibited in "churches"? Is this some sort of weird political vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.153.190 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Does X mean no or yes?

Wouldn't it be more conventional to use ticks instead of exxes to indicate which category of concealed carry arrangements each state has? 86.129.246.127 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Full Faith and Credit (CCW Permits)

The language in this section indicates that states are required to recognize same sex marriages from other states under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This most certainly is not the case. At the moment, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically abrogates the authority of the full faith and credit clause with respect to the recognition of same sex marriages performed in those jurisdictions where it is permitted. hdonagher (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it earlier.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

May Issue in Rhode Island

The article states that "and Rhode Island are considered Restrictive May-Issue states." That is only partially true. Rhode Island has two licensing mechanisms either through the Attorney general or the local chief (local town issuing authority). According to RI statute 11-47-18 the attorney general has may issue authority and currently the office does practice restrictive "may issue" licensing. According to RI statute 11-47-11 the local chief in each town/city is a "shall issue" authority. The license issued via 11-47-11 is valid in the entire state and in also allows the holder to purchase firearms with out waiting 7 days. The license issued via 11-47-18 doesn't defer the 7 day wait but does allow open carry. In practice though only some of the chiefs honor the law (11-47-11) and the rest treat it as may issue or they don't issue at all and refer the applicant to the AG. There have been court cases where chiefs have been sued (Most notably Archer vs. MacGarry and Gillette vs. Esserman) for not issuing and were ordered to do so, though this hasn't deterred the rest of the chiefs that haven't been sued yet to start issuing permits. RI is both a restrictive may issue state and a shall issue (may issue in practice) state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.146.121 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In Practice

The "in practice" addition to the chart is highly subjective. I don't disagree with it personally but it seems inappropriate to mention except in the text of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.220 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disparity

This section: "Florida (Resident), Michigan and Missouri hold the widest reciprocity of all the states in the U.S. with the number of other states honoring their permits at 37,[47][48] followed by Alaska at 35[49] then Florida (Non-Resident) and Utah at 33;[50][51] Both Michigan and Missouri, however, do not issue permits to non-residents, and some states that honor Utah permits do not extend that to include Utah's non-resident permits." and this chart: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CCW_Reciprocity_(121711).jpg" do not match up, unless I am reading the chart wrong some how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.99.163 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

gun-free zones

Criminal Protection Zones is not an "Inappropriate POV". It needs to be discussed and represented. By opting out on allowing ccw permit-ed people criminals will still enter in the protected zone the owner creates. See http://www.ohioccwforums.org/ and CPZs. Chaney44145 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Updated my contact info. Anyone willing to discuss this? Chaney44145 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

CPZ is not a commonly used term. You would need to find WP:RELIABLESOURCES discussing that term. (Gun blogs & forums etc are not sufficient). Mainstream sources on this would be tough to find, as they are generally going to slant anti-gun, but if you found professional gun sources (magazines, books (such as "More guns, less crime" etc, journals) discussing this concept then it could possibly be included. However, your edit would still be inappropriate, as you changed the title from gun-free-zone, which is the formal legal title for such zones. At best your edits could be added as a criticism of such zones. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

new article List of defensive gun use incidents

Additional editors welcome!Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of abbreviations, partially without prior declaration

In the opener there is in particular "GAO" and "CHL" which are not understandable to me as non american and non-native english speaker. I found CHL later by checking the local variants of names, but it would be easier, if CHL was substituted by CCW-License, or CCWL, which would explain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dispatcher7007 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

history of concealed carry in california

Excellent article discussing some of the historical changes in gun laws (specifically concealed carry) in California. Itself probably a RS, but also contains sufficient detail about contemporary newspaper articles which could further be used as sources. In particular has historical quotes from contemporary (1800s) newspapers arguing the very same arguments (on both sides) we are hearing today. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/946ba76f#/946ba76f/92 Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

History section needs fleshing out

The animated map is really interesting-looking, and a reader who sees it is naturally going to be curious about the trends it illustrates: Why did these changes happen? And what explains the regional effects?

But the article says nothing about any of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.105.193 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Research on the efficacy of concealed carry

A lot of the writing in this section seems to misrepresent the articles it cites. For example, the quote from Glenn, David (May 9, 2003). "'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue". The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (35): A18. Retrieved 2007-05-27: "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime." wasn't from the Journal editor's, it was from Mr. Donohue and should at least be attributed as such. However, more importantly it completely miss-represents Donohue's point: that Lott left states with conceal carry laws that didn't support his thesis out of his analysis.

In general, this section seems to present evidence for the efficacy of conceal carry laws. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts about replacing some of the misleading claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1923 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This section also brings in a lot of general statistics about gun use and crime rates, which are un-linked to conceal carry laws (as far as I can tell). I'm a new editor, so I'd appreciate a second opinion about this section before I go in and edit someone else's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1923 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mixed bag. Certainly we should only be using sources actually discussing effectiveness (or not) of concealed carry laws. Some of your deeper analysis (IE, what the sources mean, flaws in the source research, etc) are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH unless those claims are directly made by a reliable source. If you think a source is being misrepresented, then we would need to discuss what we say vs what the source says to determine consensus. If you have disagreement with the sources methodology or results, there isn't really any solution other than finding a source that says that. Even still, that probably isn't cause to remove the questionable source, but only to list both viewpoints, unless there is a wide academic/scientific consensus regarding that source. Guns are a very conentious subject, and people on both sides are fond of calling out the other side and saying their claims are rediculous, so I think true disqualification of any source is going to be difficult without running into POV issues.
Probably best to deal with things one at a time, rather than opening up a large can of worms all at once. Such actions usually leave lots of room for wiggle room in arguments where very little consensus gets built. Much easier and usually more effective to focus on individual sentences or claims and gain consensus on if they are within policy or not.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alabama

The Shall-Issue section of the article lists Alabama as one of the "undisputed Shall-Issue states", and it's listed as shall-issue in the "Status of concealed carry" table. However I believe that Alabama is a May-Issue state, albeit one in which permits are very often granted to qualified applicants. Here are a few sources: LCPGV: "Alabama is a 'may issue' state, meaning that the sheriff of a county has discretion in determining whether or not to issue a concealed handgun license to an applicant." NRA: "The sheriff of a county may, upon the application of any person residing in that county, issue a qualified or unlimited license to carry a handgun..." (To see this you need to click on "read all" in in the Carrying section.) Another one from the NRA: "Alabama and Connecticut have fairly-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems." Also, the USA Carry reciprocity map lists Alabama as "May Issue to Residents Only". — Mudwater (Talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Absent some evidence or sources to the contrary, I'm sold. Seems like its a permissive may issue, approaching a de-facto shall issue, but technically may issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Illinois: "shall issue" or "may issue"?

Whoever is claiming that the 2013 Illinois law is a "hybrid" has clearly NOT read the text of the law.

Illinois has a "shall issue" concealed weapon law. Police agencies may object to the issuing of a permit, but they must be able to articulate a legal reason for the objection. This is no different than the policies of the other "shall issue" states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Illinois is "may issue". Here's why. With "shall issue", there's a set of guidelines for disqualifying a permit applicant -- they've been convicted of a felony, etc., etc. If the applicant qualifies, the state must issue the permit. With "may issue", the state has some degree of discretion over whether to issue the permit or not. In some "may issue" states the permits are often denied, in others they're often granted, but the point is that there's some degree of leeway. Now, here's a link to the new Illinois law, which was enacted yesterday: HB 183: Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Section 15 says that any law enforcement agency can object to an individual being granted a permit "based upon a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety". Section 20 says that objections will be considered by a Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, which will decide whether or not the permit will be issued, based on "a preponderance of the evidence". The law also specifies certain reasons that law enforcement agencies must file an objection, but they are allowed to file an objection just based on their suspicion, and it's then a judgement call by the Review Board. The way the law is written, it sounds like most people who are otherwise qualified will get a license, but it's not "shall issue", because the police and the Review Board can exercise their own judgement to some extent. I would encourage other editors to state their views in this talk page section. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, here's a secondary source that was just removed from the article and that I'm about to put back. It would be easy to find other news stories that say the same thing. This one's from the Chicago Tribune. "Lawmakers Pass Concealed Carry Rules": "A $150 concealed weapons permit valid for five years would be issued by the Illinois State Police to applicants 21 and older. Law enforcement could object, and those denied could appeal to a seven-person board designed to have members with credentials such as former judge or FBI agent." — Mudwater (Talk) 13:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Almost all shall issue states have objection procedures. The difference between may issue and shall issue is the default state. A may issue state can choose not to give a permit, even if no good reason not to is articulated. In the more restrictive may issue states, you have to prove to them why you want one. A shall issue state by default will issue you one, unless good cause is shown (it remains to be seen what is considered good cause in say Chicago...) Illinois has leeway certainly, but the default condition is that the permit is issued unless someone objects. Finally, regardless of what conclusion you or I come to, illinois law is referred to as shall-issue in multiple reliable sources, and to impeach those sources with logic (even if correct logic) is WP:OR. What reliable sources call it may-issue? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For example, here is an article saying that the earlier may-issue bill was shot down. [1]. And here are several sources referring to the enacted bill as shall issue [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. Illinois has a "shall issue" law. It has none of the "show good cause" or other discretionary wording that is present in the "may issue" laws of states such as Maryland, New York, New Jersey or California. The Illinois law even specifically states that a concealed weapon permit "shall" be issued unless a police agency files an objection, and that any objection must be "reasonable" meaning that it must be based on facts and interpreted by the "reasonable man" test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Some may-issue states require the applicant to show good cause. Others don't. Some, like Alabama, Connecticut, and Delaware, almost always issue permits to qualified applicants. The definition of may-issue isn't requiring applicants to show good cause, and it's not turning down a lot of applicants, it's that the issuing authorities have some degree of discretion -- maybe a lot, or maybe a little, but some degree. With shall-issue, by contrast, there's no discretion. If you're qualified, based on completely objective criteria -- such as not having been convicted of a felony, not having been committed to a mental institution, not being the current subject of a restraining order, and so on, whatever the state's laws specify -- they have to issue the permit. It's true that the Illinois says that the state police "shall issue" the permit -- if there are no objections from any law enforcement agency. If there are, then it's up to the Review Board to decide if the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself, or a threat to public safety, based on a preponderance of the evidence. So at that point it's no longer fact-based, it's opinion-based. It's a judgement call, so some discretion is involved. That makes it may-issue, not shall-issue, by the definition of those terms. As for the point about finding secondary sources that call the new law a may-issue law, that's a good idea. I'll try to look for some when I get a chance. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've beefed up the references for Illinois' new law being shall-issue. The table now has citations from four different news sources, instead of two cites from one source. But, they're wrong, for the reasons that I stated earlier in this section. It really is a may-issue law. I believe it will be possible to show this in the future, using secondary sources instead of just the primary source of the law itself. And to get the ball rolling, here's one now, from the Chicago Sun-Times. It says, "The system of objections, which will be overseen by a new Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, was part of a compromise on the sticky wicket of whether Illinois 'shall issue' or 'may issue' concealed-carry permits. Gun rights groups wanted the law to say the state 'shall issue' the permits with the presumption going to the applicant, while gun control groups wanted the law to say 'may issue', allowing for tighter government restrictions by requiring applicants to make a case why they need to carry a gun. In the end, legislators went with 'shall issue' — with an exception if law enforcement objects." The main point of the author is that it will be difficult for law enforcement to effectively weed out objectionable applicants, due to lack of funding for this. So, it's like I've been saying. "Shall issue, except..." is a type of may-issue, because the issuing authority has some degree of discretion. Another point about this is that we'll have more information in six months to a year, when we see who does and does not receive permits, and what news sources and other reliable sources say about that. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Believe whatever nonsense you like. In the real world it's accepted that Illinois is a "shall issue" state. EVERY SINGLE "shall issue" state is "shall issue, except..." ALL OF THEM have provisions for denial of a permit. And, just as in Illinois, those grounds must meet an objective standard rather than the subjective ones used in "may issue" states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.94.226 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Permit vs license

There is a disparity over whether a state uses license or permit. Some have argued there is a difference. Indeed, with driving, a permit is granted as a probationary license of sorts. Later, the license is issued. This is the same with guns. In some states, its a license. In others, its a permit. In others, its neither. This article seems to mostly use permit, but always links to license. I think this should probably be changed, and attempted to do so, but its a bit of an undertaking. Plainly, why call it a permit, but link to license, when you could just call it directly a license?--Metallurgist (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit THCP is a permanent document, renewed every four years like my drivers license through the state Dept of Safety, recognized by Virginia (and other states) as the equivalent of their concealed carry license. There is nothing probationary about the THCP. Temporary drivers permit and permanent drivers license is something else entirely and has nothing to do with the different states using terms carry license or carry permit for the same thing. The distinction you make between carry permit and carry license is due to a mistaken analogy between drivers permit (probationary) and drivers license (permanent).

The distinction between carry permit or carry license often has to do with case law developed on top of state constitution right to keep and bear arms provisions; Tennessee protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms but reserves the legislative power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. There is an absolute right to have a gun at home or business for protection, but carry in public for protection is a privilege, hence the term "permit". What term do the majority of states use for carry documents, permit or license?

(This reminds me of a controversy in the Alan Berg article over "sheriff's denial of a permit application" interpreted as the sheriff claiming he never saw an application, when "denial" of an application is the legal term used for 'not approving' an application.) --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Naaman Brown, I left a message on your talk page. Let's not edit war on the actual page. Let's gain consensus here on what the correct term should be and then make the changes. I think both parties here have their hearts in the right place. If we keep it civil, I'm sure we can resolve this without attracting the attention of the local police.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Gun laws in the United States by state uses the term "carry permit" consistently. This article here used "permit" consistently until piecemeal edits were made from "permit" to "license".
As for calling the the police, Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Out-of-State Handgun Carry Permits refers to "out-of-state permit or license to carry" as equivalent to the state resident carry permit. Virginia has Concealed Handgun Permits CHP (my error above said VA had a concealed carry license). Texas Department of Public Safety calls theirs a Texas Concealed Handgun License or CHL, and later on equates Texas CHL to Concealed Carry Weapons Permit (in other states). You could say the carry permit is a form of license. The only distinction is what the states call their carry document. Most appear to call it a permit; others call it a license. There is no process of a carry permit leading to a carry license, despite Metallurgist's assertion "Indeed, with driving, a permit is granted as a probationary license of sorts. Later, the license is issued. This is the same with guns." It is not the same with guns.
State carry permits in states taht use that term are permanent the same as carry licenses in other states; there is one territory that will issue a temporary carry permit if you have a valid out-of-state permit/license, but that is not like the analogy above of a temporary drivers permit leading to a permanent drivers license.
I believe that the articles Gun laws in the United States by state and Concealed carry in the United States originally defaulted to using "permit" since permit is the term used by most states for the carry permit/license after noting in the lead-in paragraphs that permit and license are used by the different states for the same type of document. At this date to go back and change instances of "permit" to "license" or to the awkward "permit/license" or "license or permit" language would be unnecessary. --Naaman Brown (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My off-the-cuff recommendation is that for the particular state sections to use the word that the state uses --- if Tennessee uses "permit" then we use permit. If the state uses "license" then we use license. In general sections we can use the compound "license/permit". That might be the best that we can hope for in this situation where there doesn't appear to be consensus amongst the states......I don't think we'll reach consensus here on "one" term because linguistically there are some nuances to the words that are dispalatable to certain groups. Thoughts?-Justanonymous (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit comment reverting my correction was: "12:35, 13 December 2013‎ Justanonymous (Undid revision 585728142 by Naaman Brown (talk) No, metallurgist is right. Permits are very temporary and imply that the holder doesn't have the right. License is the correct term.)"
Metallurgist is wrong. My Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit has been valid for seven years now, it is not "very temporary", and there is no other way for a resident to have the right to carry for protection outside the home than to have a THCP--carry permit. Why do you think the original wikilink for "permit" was "license"? --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Metallurgist is not wrong. You are not wrong either. Blame and right and wrong are somewhat irrelevant. I see two good editors who think things should be their way. Instead of getting into an edit war on the page and getting us all blocked, Let's find consensus here on this page. Let's wait for Metallurgist and others to weigh in on my proposal and let's see if we can agree on a path forward. Dialog and respectful deliberation requires respect. Saying someone is "wrong" is not constructive. Instead, let's discuss what words we should use, where and when. What do you think of my proposal specifically?? And then, let's be patient and wait for a few days or a week for others to weigh in. We're in no hurry here.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Acquisition of CCW Permit as addition Legal Protection

My wife and I obtained our CCW permits not for the purpose of carrying but for the purpose of additional legal protection. We did so on the advice of my brother-in law who is with the BATF. A CCW permit considerably reduces legal risk from many inadvertent violations. EG A weapon maybe locked in a range bag or lock box in SUV, but a single cartridge not in the weapon or magazine, but inadvertently inside the lock box, back and forth from range is a serious violation with a normal registration permit, but usually no violation if you also have a CCW permit. Even a lock that malfunctions, or is judged insufficient, can be a violation, but not one if possessor has a CCW permit.

I cannot find academic research on this to add it to article, but I am fairly certain this is a significant reason for some small but significant number of CCW holders. Is there a way to include this objectively additional legal protection in the article?108.18.64.121 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My home state has a "going armed" statute that outlaws carrying anything in public concealed or not as a weapon of offense or defense. You can legally be armed for defense in your home or place of business, or on a farm. Carrying a gun while hunting is not considered "going armed". The law has exceptions for transporting in a case unloaded locked in the trunk, to or from target practice, hunting, gunsmith or gun dealer, or carrying loaded with a permit for self defense. Since I cross four county and two or three municipal jurisdictions to go target practice at family property on the mountain and often return home after sundown, the possibility of having to prove at a roadblock I was not illegally "going armed" while simply transporting to or from target practice (especially returning at night) was one incentive (in addition to self-defense) to get a carry permit. I suspect there are others who have made a similar decision. However, short of a citable research source, I would not add it to the article however logical it appears to me that others do it. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think this needs addressing. I live in the District of Columbia. I have Virginia concealed carry permit only because it actually gives my some additional legal protection while in the District to Columbia. In DC you have to be traveling to and from "a legitimate gun related activity" (with the probative burden of showing that activity on the gun owner) even to have your gun unloaded and locked in the trunk. Because of my Virginia carry permit, trips to Virginia do not have to be to a Virginia range, gun shop or formal "instruction." So, before my Va carry license, if I was stopped in DC, with my DC registered firearm, I have to prove I am coming or going from a range. Now I do not.If I me somewhere that can be argued to be on the way or returning from Virginia, the "legitimate activity" is simply carrying in Virginia for self protection, which I am allowed. Full protection, no. More legal protection than I had before, yes. This is certainly true in other states where there laws you must be coming from or going to an activity. That activity has got to be a range, or gun repair, or lessons, which maybe difficult to prove, for example at night, when those activities do not occur. Going for a drive to relax, is a legitimate armed activity if you have a CCW. There are also protections against being arrested for a lock or case judged not sufficient, in fact dozens or hypotheticals where with a CCW permit, even if you do not actually carry, give you protection against certain gun laws.108.18.71.239 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the topic is interesting, but the anecdotes above are pure WP:OR need to find a WP:RS discussing this aspect (not blogs, small websites etc).

To the IP, I don't think the virginia permit is actually giving you much protection. Sure you could be on your way back to virginia - but why did you bring the gun into DC to begin with? Unless you can answer that question, they are still going to bust you. Your right to carry in Virginia ends at the DC border (or at least thats what the cop/prosecutor is going to say).

a better argument would be that you were just passing through DC under 18USC926A ("Safe passage") [8] but if you live or work in DC thats probably a non-starter, or if you stopped in DC for any reason other than getting gas.

If you LIVE in DC, then the "virginia carry" argument might work, but only if you didn't stop anywhere in DC while transporting the gun.

In any case, the gun better be unloaded and in your trunk or in a locked case to get protection either under the DC rules, or FOPA.

Here is one source that touches on the transport in DC question, but does not address CCW as any protection http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/20/transporting-gun-through-dc/

Also http://www.nraila.org/images/DOJltrTSA.pdf may be interesting

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1) I don't think you read my comment. The answer to your hypothetical is: I brought the gun into DC because I LIVE here. I live in the district of Columbia, and own weapons registered in DC. Without the Virginia permit I must prove, when stopped in DC with a firearm locked and unloaded in my trunk that I was going to a legitimate firearms activity. The burden is on me to prove it. With my Virginia non resident permit the answer to that question can simply be that I was going for a drive in Virginia. Without that VA non resident permit, if stopped at 2 am in DC, I would be committing a gun crime. With that permit I am objectively not.
You do know out of state carry permits are a huge number of permits, right?
Again for DC gun owners without out of state carry permits, they must prove WHY they have the gun locked and in the trunk. With a VA permit the answer can be: one is on the way to, or from, Virginia for self protection -- in Virginia.
2) the NRA-ILA information on my jurisdiction is full of errors and errors of objective fact, that no one should ever recommend it.
3) I did NOT put it in the article but mentioned it here were it belongs as something to consider. There are MANY stats and juristictions where a CCW offers much more substantive legal protection than simple registration for gun owners who don't carry. 108.18.71.239 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas Unrestricted/Disputed

I changed the chart to reflect that Arkansas is an unrestricted state. The fact that the Attorney General issued a non-binding opinion that pertained only the the journey portion of the law does not change what the law actually says - that carrying a firearm is only illegal when it is carried with the intent to commit a crime. I also removed it from the disputed column, since there have been no arrests whatsoever. The only dispute of any sort is the non-binding Attorney General opinion, which has had zero impact on the actions of law enforcement. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I think it's time to call it a duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.102.138 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Extensive Resource Is Being Ignored...

I would like to discuss adding the U. S. Concealed Carry Association as a resource to this page. It is home of the popular Concealed Carry Magazine. Aside from signing up for membership, you can read free articles with information on many different concealed carry topics, particular to the United States. (See footer at http://www.USConcealedCarry.com.) This site has been around for more than a decade, and provides a real service for concealed carry citizens. Can it be added as an external link? I think it's warranted for this article. --Patm7 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Go for it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! Will do.--Patm7 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have done it, but I write for that magazine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I know that. We had a link for almost three years, and someone has taken them down from several pages pertaining to concealed carry. (Not the page owners, members.) Just FYI. Thanks again! --Patm7 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Crime and Safety Correlation with Concealed Weapons or Firearms

by Gabrielle Hammond

By carrying a concealed weapon, the holder is exposed to a higher level of potential crime or association. Over 35 states legally have passed what is known as the “Shall-Issue Law.” According to the Buckeye Firearms Association, “States with ‘shall issue’ systems require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and applicants must meet meet certain well defined objective criteria” (Shall). States with these systems will issue a carry concealed weapon permit to a person willing they pass certain state criteria. States that have passed this law between the years of 1977 through 2010 saw a 9% increase of rape, assault, auto theft, and burglary according to a 2012 edition of a paper posted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Concealed). In 2007 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reviewed a list of concealed gun permit holders in Florida and found that 1,400 had pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony, 216 had outstanding warrants, and 128 had active domestic violence injunctions (Concealed). Even if the person carrying the concealed weapon with a permit does not become involved in crime and felonies, a person who is a criminal will account for the civilian who is carrying a weapon. 75% Of felons interviewed by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research reported carrying a gun while committing a crime due to the fact that their victims or surrounding civilians may also be armed (Concealed). Not only do licensed private handgun carriers have the potential to be involved in more crime, they also are at risk for being involved in someone else's potential lethal crime. This endangers the rightful concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holder’s own safety. By carrying a concealed handgun it puts the holder’s safety at risk, as well as the safety and well being of the people around them and even their loved ones.The safety of loved ones is at risk even when the holder is not carrying their weapon. 89% of children that have died by accidental shootings was from a result of playing with their guardian's loaded guns in their absence (Gun). Even if the owner is careful to not let their weapon out of their sight, they are still endangering their family’s lives. By constantly having access to a gun, it subconsciously affects the person. States with the highest level of households owning firearms had 60% higher suicide rates than states that had lower levels of gun ownership in homes (Gun).

Works Cited

"Concealed Guns ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProConorg, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://concealedguns.procon.org/>.

"Gun Safety & Public Health: Policy Recommendations for a More Secure America." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence RSS. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/>

"Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No-Issue and Unrestricted States." Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No- Issue and Unrestricted States. Buckeye Firearms Association, 1 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/shall-issue-may-issue-no-issue-and-unrestricted-states>.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.195.66 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Arkansas

Arkansas is an unrestricted concealed carry state. The text of the law is clear, regardless of what the previous attorney general said in 2013. I have edited the article to reflect this fact. Guneditor383 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Please provide evidence for your claims. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

5-73-120. Carrying a weapon. 

 (a) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.

From http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/arcode/Default.asp

There is nothing at all illegal about carrying a gun if you do not use it for illegal purposes. Dustin McDaniel's non-binding opinion from 2013 is completely irrelevant. Guneditor383 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It's also non-binding, and at odds with the actual text of the law. Guneditor383 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Attorney General over the years has issued hundreds of opinions interpreting the FOIA. These are advisory opinions, not binding on Arkansas courts." There is also the fact that no one has been convicted or even charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit since 2013.Guneditor383 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

    • At a minimum, this should be treated as 'disputed'. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Permitting Policies section is bloated with info best placed elsewhere

Every United States jurisdiction has an article pertaining to its gun laws, as well as a summary section in Gun laws in the United States. Most of the specifics of how permits are issued in any given state are best suited to those articles, not this one. I propose that the section be drastically shortened to contain only summary information about each basic permitting policy.

I entirely agree, it would be most useful to include a general overview of the most common types of restrictions, licenses, and considerations without any jurisdictional specifics. If a portal with links to jurisdiction specific pages does not already exist one should be created and linked to in this section. haugen haus (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concealed carry in the United States. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

NBER study -- correlation or cause?

@Snooganssnoogans: Hello. About this edit: Looking at the summary of the cited reference, it starts out by saying, "The 2004 report of the National Research Council (NRC) on Firearms and Violence recognized that violent crime was higher in the post-passage period (relative to national crime patterns) for states adopting right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws, but because of model dependence the panel was unable to identify the true causal effect of these laws from the then-existing panel data evidence." I think that's quite clear. The study says that the passage of laws allowing concealed carry is correlated with higher rates of violent crime, *not* that the laws *cause* higher rates violent crime. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The section that you're quoting is describing the limits to previous research on the subject. This paper overcomes those limits. From the paper: "we generate estimates of the causal impact of RTC laws on crime." More in-depth bit from the conclusion: "the weight of the evidence from the panel data estimates as well as the synthetic controls analysis best supports the view that the adoption of RTC laws substantially raises overall violent crime in the ten years after adoption. In our initial panel data analysis, our preferred DAW specification as well as the BC specification predicted that RTC laws have led to statistically significant and substantial increases in violent crime. When the LM and MM models were appropriately adjusted, they generated the same findings, but even without adjustment, these models showed RTC laws increased murder significantly. We then supplemented our panel data results using our synthetic control methodology, again using the DAW, BC, LM, and MM specifications. Now the results were uniform: for all four specifications, states that passed RTC laws experienced 13-15% higher aggregate violent crime rates than their synthetic controls after 10 years (results that were significant at either the .05 or .01 level after five years). The synthetic controls estimates for the impact of RTC laws on murder and property crime were also uniformly positive after ten years (but not statistically significant). If one adjusts the synthetic controls estimates for the increased rates of police and incarceration that follow RTC adoption, the RTC-induced increases in murder become large and statistically significant. The synthetic controls effects that we measure represent meaningful increases in violent crime rates following the adoption of RTC laws, and this conclusion remained unchanged after restricting the set of states considered based on model fit and after considering a large number of robustness checks." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Okay, I guess you're right then. Since the paper can not be viewed by someone such as myself who does not have a subscription, perhaps a brief quote can be added to the footnote to make this clearer. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The unpublished Donohue paper claiming RTC induces increases in crime is an outlier to the two dozen or so papers published under peer review in academic journals which show either a reduction in crime or at least no bad effect from right-to-carry laws.
The Donohue paper has not been published under peer review and Donohue has never really answered NRC remarks about his hybrid model (combining level and trend models into one equation) producing a spiked first year increase in crime followed by an accelerated decline when applied to NRC's hypothetical county dataset with data projecting a steadily decreasing crime rate. Firearms and Violence NAS 2004, Chapter 6 Right-to-Carry Laws. Figure 6.1. "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws. The important feature of the hybrid model is that it nests Models 6.1 [level] and 6.2 [trend]."
There were people like Glenn White (Dallas Police Assn), Joshua Marquis (Dechutes CO, Clatsop CO OR Prosecutor), John Holmes (Harris CO TX prosecutor), Ron Silver (FL representive), who were honest opponents of Right-To-Carry (RTC shall-issue concealed carry permit/license) based on the hypotheticals that were used to justify banning or highly restricting concealed carry in the past. Jurisdictions that track crimes by permit holders find that concealed carry permit holders commit crimes at rates lower than the general adult population or even the police. After experiencing a decade or so of RTC, these critics either contacted the RTC supporters they opposed or the newspapers that published their op-eds and admitted error. Glenn White: "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen", Joshua Marquis: "I was wrong", John Holmes: "Boy was I wrong". Donohue comes across sounding like a true believer opposed to R-T-C laws unwilling to admit error. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Concealed carry in the United States. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

out of date info

I removed some out of date info. It was subsequently restored [9] I think this type of information may be suitable to the DC article, but in a WP:SUMMARY article like this one, showing all the evolutionary steps seems unlikely to be useful. Thoughts? ResultingConstant (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's to explain why DC was briefly considered a constitutional carry jurisdiction as noted in the large chart. It's only 2 sentences long.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A situation that lasted for 4 days and only in one city does not belong in the overview article for the entire concept of concealed carry. It belongs in the DC article. ResultingConstant (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Alabama is still "May Issue" for CCWs?!!

In Alabama, local sheriffs have the say on if the permits are issued. If you want to carry a handgun concealed on your person or in your vehicle, a permit is required.

...

The sheriff can turn down an applicant for any reason.

...

The move is not without opposition, including pushback from the powerful Alabama Sheriffs Association. The opposition to permit-less carry centers around sheriffs losing the ability to deny permits to applicants they feel pose a danger to the community.

From: USA Today, Montgomery Advertiser (2017 Nov 04) at: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2017/11/04/alabama-leads-nation-concealed-weapons-permits/825002001/ Phantom in ca (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is shall issue. Check the actual law: http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/codeofalabama/1975/13A-11-75.htm Same goes for your other post on the Alabama article. Terrorist96 (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Point 11 seems to give some fairly large "may" effect to the law. ResultingConstant (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Still needs some articulable reason. Can't arbitrarily deny permits for any reason like other may issue jurisdictions... as evidenced by them being the state with the highest percentage of its residents with a carry permit.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

NBER in lede - pov, undue, and no expansion within article

The third graf has what appears to be POV/counter-POV going on wrt to the effect of CCW on violent crime. One non-peer-reviewed paper is submitted as evidence that CCW increases violent crime, contrary to the bulk of academic research findings over the years. But the biggest problem is that this is mentioned only in the lede, and nowhere within the article. That's not how articles work. The lede is a summary of the article, to varying degrees of detail, but it does not go into matters that are not discussed in the body of the article at all.

I would propose that the third graf be removed in its entirety - or, better perhaps, a section be added covering what the third graf covers, (ideally in greater detail, and maintaining appropriate cited weight), with the lede can pointing out that most of the evidence suggests that CCW reduces violent crime, but that that conclusion is not accepted as a certainty. Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User Snooganssnoogans removed my summary, while employing an extremely uncivil edit summary. Please discuss article changes here, and be civil. I explained the rationale for the change in structure here. Most research does indeed suggest that concealed carry reduces violent crime, but this is not universally accepted, primarily because all such research works in the realm of correlations. Bottom line: edit summaries are not immune from wikipedia's policies regarding civility. If you have a problem with an edit, discuss it here. I'm entirely open to revising the summary. I would propose this summary, as it avoids any judgement on the research: "Concealed Carry permit holders show significantly fewer convictions for violent crimes than the public at large. Some research suggests that CCW reduces violent crime, with other research contradicting those conclusions." Anastrophe (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is what it's in the body of the article:
    • Two studies that show CC reduces violent crime
    • One NAP comprehensive literature review that no concludes no evidence that CC reduces crime
    • Two studies that show CC increase violent crime.
The following line, "Most research suggests that concealed carry reduces violent crime, but this is not without dispute," is not substantiated by the body at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The article only cites those few studies, but that isn't comprehensive. However, in terms of the subsection, it's a reasonable start for how the lede summary should be worded. Please respond to my suggestion for alternative wording. The NAP review is not peer reviewed, and it also contains significant discussion that calls into question the neutrality of the authors; it also contains literally false statements that call into question their results and motives, but that's a discussion for another place.I think my proposed summary is brief and characterizes the subsection fairly. Either way, lets work together on a summary that is NPOV. Anastrophe (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you familiar with NAP reports? Genuine question, because the comment above suggests you're not. NAP reports are typically considered the most comprehensive and thorough reviews of literature that you can find, as they're authored by a large and distinguished set of scholars and are typically independently reviewed by a dozen or more scholars. This particular report appears to have been peer-reviewed by 11 scholars. You can read more here[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
As for re-writing the lede, this is not a topic I'm familiar with. As a result, I'd put the comprehensive NAP literature review front and center while noting that individual studies have purported to show that CC reduces and increases crime. I've frequently cited NAP lit reviews in Wikipedia articles and in ledes, so my insistence that we go with NAP is a consistent and principled one. I suggest: "A comprehensive 2005 literature review by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there was no evidence that concealed carry reduced crime; individual studies however purport to show both that concealed carry increases and decreases crime." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I misspoke, it isn't the NAP review, it's the two working papers. Those are particularly a problem, as neither are peer-reviewed. Peer reviewed studies carry more weight than non-peer-reviewed working papers - so the only two claims that CCW increases violent crime do not carry as much as those that do. I think at minimum this discrepancy needs to be noted in the section, as it's misleading to present them as on equal footing with the peer-reviewed papers.
"As for re-writing the lede, this is not a topic I'm familiar with.". I don't understand this sentence. I didn't propose rewriting the lede, only rewording the summary for the section in question.
My counter-proposed summary: ""A comprehensive 2005 literature review by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there was no evidence that concealed carry either increases or reduces violent crime; some individual studies suggest that CCW reduces violent crime; others suggest that it increases violent crime." The distinction between the weight imbalance of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed doesn't need to be in the lede, as long as it's addressed in the subsection. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree? Object? Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll add it to the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Donohue's work is being given far more weight than what the bulk of research suggests. From the same author we have an article, two non-peer-reviewed working papers, and now an article that is a regurgitation of the working papers. His is the only research that suggests causation, which the NBER survey very strongly cautions is virtually impossible to claim (and rightly so). His research has yet to be refereed. So we have six different peer-reviewed studies presented by different organizations, and four citations to non-refereed material from one author. I suggest trimming the mentions of Donohue to the the one 2017 paper, since the 2014 paper was simply non-refereed prelude to the 2017 non-refereed paper. The rest are simply padding, which is clearly WP:UNDUE. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Per user Snooganssnoogans edit, I actually don't have a problem with the working papers being cited, so long as they're cited in context as not-yet-peer-reviewed. I'm not sure whether articles would be a better presentation of his work or not. I'm open to whatever changes we all agree upon as appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Basic proper referencing of an article.

You need to place the citation of the reference to a claim at THE FIRST POINT in the article that it appears. Having it at all points is better. Not having it at the first point is improper. This is about writing the article correctly, not personal and not politics.

Fix it right, or leave it out. Montestruc (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, part of writing correctly is providing a reference to exactly what you are talking about. This is a long article. Please point us to the specific instances that are problematic. Likewise this is not personal or political. This is about cooperative, collaborative editing with your peers. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, forgive me, I see what this is about. User Montestruc, you are mistaken about proper article construction. It is not necessary to insert cites in the lede of an article. The lead is a summary. The citations appear in the body of the article, appropriately. It is not improper to do so. The expectation is that the reader, if interested, will actually delve into the body of the article, where they will find the material correctly cited.Anastrophe (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Unlicensed Carry in Illinois

Per PEOPLE v. BRUNER, ILL: 675 N.E.2d 654 (1996), carrying a encased, unloaded handgun, or in this case a unloaded handgun in a purse, is perfectly legal as long as the person has a FOID; in 2000, this started a trend called "fanny pack carry" in Illinois where people carried unloaded guns in fanny packs.

Official state transport guide issued by the Department of Natural Resources states that one my carry a firearm on their person if it meets the following conditions:

  1. Unloaded
  2. Enclosed in a case
  3. By persons who have a valid FOID card.

The third condition was ruled by the surpreme court to be inapplicable to non-residents with currently valid CCWs, or gun registrations in People v. Holmes (2011). Illinois issues FOIDs by mail to non-residents. The only technicality is that the State Conservation Police may ticket you under the wildlife code for not having a handgun in a case specifically designed for a firearm, but guess what? They make fanny packs, and cell phone case holsters specifically for firearms so it's effectively moot. --Thegunkid (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Permitless Carry limited to Non-Residents Unconstitutional per multiple Supreme Court Decisions

  • Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) - [The] privileges and immunities clause [...] bar[s] discrimination against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States.
  • Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265 (1977) - § 60 prohibits nonresidents from catching menhaden in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay, [...] the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [...] held [...] that the residency restriction of § 60 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [...] we affirm.

There are several more cases I can cite but the first is the main citation, and the second is the most applicable. --Thegunkid (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to challenge such laws in ID, ND, and WY under those precedents. Otherwise, we need reliable sources making those claims before we can add it.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Puerto Rico no-issue?

So where is the citation that Puerto Rico is no-issue? I recall a news segment on CNN a few years ago (before the the court case creating de facto constitutional carry for a while) that showed average Puerto Ricans getting carry permits; From what I understand Puerto Rico is effectively shall-issue, but it's just a very expensive and drawn out paperwork intensive process. --Thegunkid (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I noticed "Arkansas,[disputed]" (only in the case of Arkansas) in the article prose and "Disputed" as a column heading in the Status of concealed carry, by jurisdiction table. That table column has a checkmark for Arkansas, and also for California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. It is not immediately apparent to me what disputed means in this/these contexts. The superscripted assertion re Arkansas probably needs a second look, and clarification about the intended meaning of that term is probably needed in one or both of these cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Arkansas, there is dispute on the legality of constitutional carry (meaning a dispute in the interpretation of the law). But the other ones, the disputed check mark means the laws are being challenged in court, though those are probably very outdated.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest some clarification as to the "disputed" column, perhaps something like, "being challenged". Or removal entirely as it's really not providing useful information to the reader currently. Ifnord (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ideal Conceal

Could the new Ideal Conceal be in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me the Ideal Conceal article should even exist. It fails notability on several levels. I'd recommend it be deleted, and the details - if ever found notable - folded into this article. Anastrophe (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
An ephemeral flash in the pan like the folding pen gun does not deserve mention. There are thousands of concealable firearm models not mentioned in the article. Why this one?--Naaman Brown (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Working paper by Lott in the lede

I'm not sure we should be citing a working paper by Lott in the lede. He's neither nor neutral on this issue, so it'd be preferable to wait for a peer-reviewed assessment or secondary coverage of his data on the number of concealed carry licenses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better source for the number of permits by year? Terrorist96 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Lede

The bold line here summarizes the body of the article, namely the "Effect on violent crime" section[11], yet it keeps getting removed from the lede and replaced with nonsense:

  • A comprehensive 2004 literature review by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there was no evidence that concealed carry either increases or reduces violent crime. Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime or that they increase violent crime.

Three editors have edit-warred this line out of the article, and replaced it with individual studies:

  • The first time, MrThunderbolt1000T removed the line, and replaced it with a discredited (per the National Academy of Science lit review) 1998 study by Mustard and Lott, and another study in a low-impact journal which found that concealed carry reduced crime rates[12]. There is zero reason for us to be citing two individual study in the lede, in particular a discredited 1998 study.
  • The second time, a single-purpose gun regulation account removed the line, inserted a line about how most research finds no impact, and added a cite (in the edit summary) to a lit review from a study that covered basically the same period as the National Academy lit review (MrThunderbolt1000T then added a cite to the wrong Mark Gius study).[13] This is again a single study (and thanks to MrThunderbolt1000T, the wrongly cited one), and it already mirrors what the National Academy of Science lit review says.
  • Then, a third user, Apeholder removed the bold line, and edit-warred the wrongly cited single study back into the lede[14].
  • The final version of the lede (before El C protected the page) was written by MrThunderbolt1000T who claims to replaced the bold line with a sentence that summarizes the body: "Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime, that they increase violent crime, or that they decrease violent crime. Research has been mixed and disputed as a result."[15] This is not an accurate summary of the body, because research subsequent to the National Academy of Sciences literature review overwhelmingly either finds no impact on crime rates or that concealed carry increases crime. The bold line is actually a conservative assessment of the literature, given that both a 2017 review and a 2017 Science article stated that the existing recent scholarship indicated that concealed carry does increase crime. Just counting the studies shows that there are approximately ten studies that show no (or weak) impact, ten that show an increase in crime (or that find no impact or an increase depending on methodology), and two that show a decrease in crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    So, the body, which cites multiple studies and research papers that all find different outcomes, is only represented by a 2004 academic review? An individual study of other papers... So, one study is discredited by another, but the latter study is infallible? The studies in the body, taken altogether, show mixed results. How do you misunderstand something that simple? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, are you now also disputing whether the lede should cover the National Academy of Science 2004 review (which is a state-of-the-art review)? And you now want to remove the NAS 2004 report because you erroneously think that the NAS 2004 report is just like any other study (as opposed to a state-of-the-art review of existing research)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You said that there's no reason we should include two studies in the lead, but yet you're fine with including one study. Who defines "state of the art?" You, of all people? There's plenty of "state of the art" institutions that support the assertion that RTC laws reduce violent crime, but yet you don't seem to care. I never said that the NAS review should be removed from the article, I'm disputing your claim that somehow, the NAS is an infallible review that provides all the consensus needed on a subject, when in fact, it disputes the validity of studies that use actual crime data to reach their conclusions. Are you seriously not understanding that? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have given you the info that NAS does state-of-the-art reviews of existing research - you have opted to ignore and dismiss this rather than acknowledge this piece of info and move on. If you refuse to acknowledge that the NAS does state-of-the-art reviews, then I don't know what to do for you. As for mentioning the NAS 2004 report in the lede, it's in line with what the body of our article says, so it's perfectly fine to use that as a lit review for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, you can include a study in the lede, but your position is that because it discredits the studies that find RTC laws decrease violent crime. You've accused me of bad-faith edits, so I'll make this clear: the only reason you would have to present this as a representation of a body that cites conflicting studies is because it discredits the ones you don't like. Either you can admit that the body includes credible studies that support, oppose, and are neutral on, the belief that RTC laws reduce or increase violent crime, or you're completely biased. The body cites multiple sources from accredited individuals and institutions on both sides of the issue as well as in the middle. As far as I'm concerned, the NAS 2004 review can say whatever it wants, but the fact remains that the studies (at least half a dozen against a single review) which concluded that RTC laws reduce violent crime cite actual statistics as their methodology. Are you going to go so ridiculously far as to discredit actual statistics? There are actual statistics on the matter, and if you're impartial and aware of them, you should stop trying to discredit these studies. "State of the art" institutions once said that black people were genetically inferior to white people. Unless you're a racist, I'm sure you can agree that they were wrong. Stop with this "state of the art" and stop acting like big accredited institutions can't be wrong. All the research is conflicting and disputed: therefore, the lede should reflect the body's acknowledgement of this. The NAS is not the judge of credibility court and neither are you. You said the lede should summarize the body and the current revision does. All I want is for the lede to properly reflect the body, "this isn't rocket science." --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, refer to this Wikipedia article, More Guns, Less Crime. Specifically, refer to the reception section. There's plenty of support and opposition to the idea that RTC laws reduce violent crime, so the consensus on the issue supports my final lede. Unless you'd like to say the supporters aren't credible like you did before? Why am I supposed to believe some random dude on the Internet when he says that researchers from accredited institutions and backgrounds are wrong? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is it about this that you don't understand: one single study =/= the entire body of literature? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That's funny, you're the one claiming the NAS review is "state of the art" and not advocating for its elimination from the lede. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between an individual study and a review of existing studies. This is not rocket science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well all I can say is any wording similar to what is being edit warred over by several folks is borderline copyvio from this. If we're going to be using the wording best to quote and attribute it unless it is substantially altered.--MONGO (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A Gius review covering 1993-2005 is not "subsequent research" to that covered in the 2004 NAS report

An editor keeps trying to add text to the lead that claims that subsequent research to the NAS report reflect the findings of the literature review by Gius. However, the literature review by Gius covers pretty much the exact same period as the NAS report, thus it is not "subsequent research" and certainly does not cover research published in the last decade (which readers might be misled into thinking). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor appears to have recognized this, yet immediately edit-warred text back into the lead by now claiming that a 2016 study in the European Economic Review was a "meta-analysis" of existing research, but it's not a meta-analysis. And furthermore, the study in question found a positive (albeit small) relationship between concealed carry and violent crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States/Archive_3&oldid=1077397387"