Talk:Concealed carry in the United States/Archive 1

Map
The mapis from 1986, it doesn't come close to matching what the current laws are. It is very confusing if you look at the map and it is totally different from the words of the article. That is until you read the map caption that says 1986. That is 22 years old. I removed this outdate map

4.142.45.69 06:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)eric


 * The map is an animated GIF that rotates through every year from 1986 through 2007. If your browser doesn't display animated GIFs properly, fix your browser.
 * --jdege 04:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

POV?
This article could benefit from some additional text covering some of the arguments against concealed carry. Right now it's less neutral point of view than it could be. (this from a handgun owner, btw).

-- Pat


 * That is could. I wrote the original, and didn't intend it to be a love-fest for either the pro- or anti-gun crowd.  Anyone from Handgun Control out there to provide another opinion?


 * dino 03:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't need arguments against concealed carry. A neutral point is view isn't always the right point of view.  The arguments against concealed carry fall flat when you consider the statistics gathered on the subject.
 * -Alyeska


 * It DOES need arguments on both sides or by defenition it is not Neutral. Right or wrong, Wikipedia attempts to be neutral.  Statistics don't prove anything.  Stats are so easy to manipulate, they can be turned around faster than you can say "Gun rights" or "Gun Control". motor.on
 * Reality Check! NPOV means presenting facts and not opinions. Presenting both sides of an arguement is not NPOV, it's anti-informative and biased.  Period. --Shawn 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that there should be equal time to the pro KKK wiki page, or equal time to Holocaust denialists?


 * This article primarily states the status of current laws in the US regarding concealed carry rights. It would be a point of view to make the case that such laws shouldn't exist in the overview or introduction of the article.  That said, however, because concealed carry laws are controversial, there are collections of points made on both sides of the argument to summarize differing points of view contained in the article.  These points of view don't have to be NPOV, but they do need to be balanced.  The current article does seem to be balanced in total.  But, it is not our position to make the case for or against concealed carry laws as much as to state the current status of these laws, and, for balance, to state the points of view of the major viewpoints, including significant minority viewpoints, of why such a right exists or should not exist.  Yaf 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the position should not be to make a case for or against concealed carry, but even if both points of view are balanced, should they really exist in an encyclopedia? As has been mentioned above, I think NPOV means exactly that... not providing equal time to those for and against the issue. Cosmos7 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which States?
Could someone list the States which (or, as it would be shorter: which do not) allow Concealed Carry?

If you go down to the bottom of the article, in the links is the one to Packing.org, which is described as having a state-by-state database. It is difficult to give a simple list, as different states have different definitions of concealed carry and some may not include reciprocity. -Fuzzy 01:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way is to work from most restrictive states to least restrictive states. Vermont and Alaska have unrestricted carrying of handguns (loaded, unloaded, visible, concealed--makes no difference) execept where carry is restricted by federal law. Four states (Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin and Illinois) do not currently allow the carrying of concealed handguns except for certain classes of individuals (like private investigators and even that is limited). Washington, D.C. should fall into this category as well. While D.C. DOES allow individuals possessing a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun, no permits have been issued since 1976. Nine states (Hawaii, California, Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Deleware, and Maryland) have "may issue" laws which are very restrictive in terms of who can have a concealed carry permit. Applicants must demonstrate both a compelling need and a level of firearms competency to get the license. All of the remaining states have "shall issue"--as long as you meet the requirements you shall receive a license.

Not sure about relevance of state coverage
Many countries allow, or do not intervene in the freedom of, their citizens to carry handguns concealed to some degree or other. It would be somewhat slanted to adopt an Americocentric point of view of concealed carry without deliving into the rest of the world with a similar degree of resolution. The countries Switzerland, Israel and Yemen come to mind.


 * Agreed, I think someone should write a more international POV article at the top, and then a per-country view further down. Most of the current article could be moved to an "America" section. --84.119.225.232 13:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (user:kasperl before logging in.


 * Since this article was written with only the US in mind, I renamed the article to be "Concealed carry (USA)" and forwarded the old name to it. If somebody wants to create an "international" concealed carry page under the old name, go ahead. Otherwise for searching sake, I'll leaving it as a redirection. Wodan 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You should have moved it and then made a new 'Concealed carry' page so the history could be viewed in the new location Preisler 22:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that was possible. I'll ask an admin to try to fix it. Thanks for pointing it out. Wodan 22:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

From Concealed carry
Text restored from the 18:45, 14 May 2005 revision of this page. It was originally at Concealed carry. dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this was moved to "Concealed carry (USA)." Can I get an explanation? Notthe9 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Somebody had a problem with the lack of representation of concealed carry in non-USA countries and called the page USA-biased. In order not to have USA pertinent information removed, I moved the page to Concealed carry (USA) and ended the "confusion." Unfortunately I didn't know about the page move function and just did a cut a paste, so the talk page was not moved. I have requested the admins to migrated the old talk page and histories to the current Concealed carry (USA) page. Wodan 21:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was the one who complained, in the vain hope that some EU legal knowledgables would add some more info. Still, the move was a good idea IMHO. I just hope that a more general page might someday be written by someone who knows enough about it. --Kasperl 18:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it does make sense to have a US-specific article, since it's a major and somewhat insular debate in the U.S. A broader article could discuss concealed-firearms laws in general, and link to this one for the specifics on the U.S. debate. --Delirium 08:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

For enquiring minds
According to http://www.packing.org, there are currently 4 states out of 50 that do not have any provision in their laws for allowing concealed carry of firearms. Those four are Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

In Nebraska, apparently open carry is legal, although regulated in some localities. Kansas issues CCW permits to Private Investigators only, and those typically will be honored in other states. Also, open carry does appear to be legal in Kansas as well. In Wisconsin, while CCW is not legal, again, open carry is, although there are some restrictions.

In Illinois, open and concealed carry of a LOADED firearm is illegal. However, there was a change in the law a few years ago, that some people have been taking advantage of. For further info, you should check out http://www.concealcarry.org. WARNING!!! I have been told that most Illinois County prosecutors are looking to get someone for following the advice from that site. So far I understand they haven't been too successful. --Al 22:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick aside as to Kansas' issuing CCW permits only to PIs. The state of Ohio had for many years required private investigators to undergo firearms training in order to get their PI license, but once they had their licence they were forbidden by state law to carry a concealed handgun. In Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 2003 the Ohio Supreme Court upheld this odd restriction. This decision was the spark that lead to the passage of Ohio's concealed carry law that became effective April 8, 2004.

FBI statement
> A quote at the following site: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry > > > > The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall > in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms > for self-defense." > > I called the FBI this morning and they claim they made no sush statement. > Could you please send me you exact reference to this quote? > > Thanks, Lance May

Can anyone investigate this further for us? -- Zanimum 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is doubtful that a random staff person answering the phone would know the source of this quote off the cuff. As for the quote, it was published in the 1992 Uniform Crime Report issued by the FBI. Have added citation, with a verifiable citation, for substantiating this quote. Yaf 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[How would you know how extensively I called the FBI? [You are making assumptions. Lance May] Your reference YAF is worthless even if correct. You need to get the crime report from the FBI and quote it exactly ie page number etc. I have already tried this and it does not say any such thing. This famous quote is based on an individuals interpretation of the FBI statistics and as such is disputable. Sincerely, Lance May

Lance, Where did you find a copy of the FBI's 1992 Uniform Crime Report, was it online? I was just at the FBI's UCR page: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm and they show no UCRs before 1995. Thanks, David Fortini
 * If anyone is interested, I just received a CD containing pdf files of the FBI's UCR's from 1980-1994. The 1992 report is there but it's 426 pages long.  If someone has OCR software I'll be happy to email them a copy so we can do a search.  A cursory review of the "violent crime" section (where I would assume any quote like this would be) showed no mention of gun ownership at all.  Lawyer2b 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that this hasn't been properly sourced, I'm removing the second paragraph in the statistics section. The first paragraph has about as much foundation as the second did, and should probably go too. SS451 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm removing the statistic section.  I scoured the internet for sources but can't find any that support those statements.  I did find a bunch of other stats though.  Problem is it's difficult to find stats that DIRECTLY relate to concealed carry.  Most are just self defense stats.  If I find anything noteworthy that directly relates to CCW I'll add it. Thernlund 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

make sense
Opening paragraph says "In others open carry is prohibited even with a permit." this doesn't make sense in context. should be "even without" or "with a different"
 * It means if you carry the weapon must not be visible.

table?
A table would be useful, with following details about which states: no permit required/shall issue/may issue/prohibit with may issue states, what is the real practice reciprocal agreements allow open carry allow back-ups allow alternative weapons mandate new weapon integral locking mechanisms it could be stated to be correct as at a certain date

Quotes Needed
Lance, Where did you find a copy of the FBI's 1992 Uniform Crime Report, was it online? I was just at the FBI's UCR page: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm and they show no UCRs before 1995. Thanks, David Fortini

Good point David! I think 1995 is as far back as is available at the FBI site. I called the FBI and had the assistant pull the file and scan it for key words. She was unable to locate within it any statements that are quoted in this article. You see, I'm a gun owner and strongly believe in ownership. The problem with this article is that the quotes from the 1992 report are taken from unreliable sources like blogs and biased sites. Whoever the author is, they should get a copy of that report and quote the page these statements appear on. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also why quote 1992 statistics when the 2003 report is available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf. There is further data at: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ I'll tell you why because it's a case of quoting someone else in an unbroken chain for over a decade. An antigunner would make fun of such a pathetic piece of propaganda as this article. I can't imagine the author quoting a blog for a reference. Let's show some class! On further note, the article is not even close neutral. Take a look at the FBI statistics for Illinois http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm It shows just as much or more reduction in crime, and it is a non-carry state. Could it be that crime rates are dropping regardless of carry permits? A non-biased article would be frank about this posibillity. As of today June 2006 on the news: Crime is up. See: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/national/w060449D57.DTL

Tags added
Article is unencyclopedic. It offers arguments for and against ccw, but not enough basic information on these laws. A summary of laws by state would be a good place to start. Article contains whole sections without sources. Pro-ccw arguments are stronger than anti-ccw arguments.--JChap 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I would agree with your comments regarding more information about state laws and sources I find your comments upon the strength of arguments to be irrelevant given the situation. The strength of ones arguments do not reflect on any bias or misconduct, they represent the merits of ones position.--Mutex 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the wrong tag and I will be removing it. That tag is for articles on subjects that simply shouldn't be on wikipedia, this article needs work, but the subject is encyclopedic. The right tags would be the Citations tag, This article needs to be expanded tag, and probably the clean up tag. The tag you put is "This article shouldn't be on wikipedia on this subject at all." PPGMD 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I added the tags that I tought it needed, the intro needs cleanup badly, it's way too long. PPGMD 01:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Think Preferred Weapons for Concealed Carry section should be deleted
This entire article should only hold mention of weapons commonly carried and not go into great detail, as most of the stuff in this section is not fact. This section should present facts about "What is Concealed Carry?" and not "how to select a weapon for concealed carry as," because it is a strongly debated topic. There is no way to present it from a NPOV unless you simply describe features as what they do. Even if this section is rewritten to be just defined firearm terms, then it should be in a general article about firearms and not concealed carry.

This section presents wording that is not neutral such as, "It is widely held...," "may not be able...," and, "its reputation..." Other terms like, "Stopping Power," which is still strongly argued in the firearm community and does not have any facts supporting it. In the same section it states, "increasing stopping-power," which is a list with many caliber's ability to stop someone strongly argued. Another line, " Single-action revolvers are rarely concealed-carried," presents not fact that this is the case and simply the original posters POV. Unless someone presents a strong argument to keep this section, then I'm going to delete it. I will possibly sit down and rewrite it from blank again as well but I say firstly, let's get this entire article based on FACT. - Reflux 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a list of facts, or, in the case of this article as you have proposed, should it be just a list of firearm terms. On the other hand, your claim of the appearance of POV is certainly a valid point, as citations do need to be added for the unsupported claims that are here.  Most of these claims, though, do largely appear to follow published recommendations similar to what Ayoob, Royce, and other similar gun authors have published and continue to recommend.


 * Instead of deleting the whole section, how about if we consider tagging the individual statements that need to be cited? That would likely be more productive.  For example, the 9 mm and/or 38 special recommendation as a minimum self-defense caliber is well documented in Royce (in BGB), among several other sources.  The article should be based not on fact, per se, but rather on citations that can be verified; otherwise it won't be in accordance with WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:VER, etc., criteria.  Yaf 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article does not have to be a "list" of facts but should be a well written article presenting the verifiable facts of conceal carrying. One caliber being better than another is not verifiable facts in most cases and is strongly disputed. Same goes for the list of calibers in order of stopping power. A list of commonly carried calibers would be better wording as the effectiveness of each is something that is commonly argued and not verifiable fact. This current article has unverifiable facts and some weasel words. If specific qualites are to be listed (i.e. minimum caliber suggested), then the source of who said it needs to be cited. The top of the page even has messages about the neutrality of this article, the quality of it, and the lack of references. Reflux 07:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yaf, You know where some of these quotes come from? I have a couple books, one by Ayoob, that I can look for. Also going to get some references up for this page. Reflux 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do; as I have several books that will provide citations for some of these points, with re-writes of course as necessary to capture specific quotations. Will probably add these references/citations this weekend.  Later...  Yaf 02:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Methods of Carry
The part about Georgia that said IWB clips are illegal was incorrect. The law says and I quote: "...firearm may only be carried in a shoulder holster, waist belt holster, any other holster, hipgrip, or any other similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the person´s clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other closed container."

A hipgrip is a clip protruding from the grip. See http://www.baramihipgrip.com/ for an example of what a hipgrip is. A similar device to a hipgrip is a clip.

State Total part 2
Reciprocity recognition is tough to keep up with. Packing.org has fallen upon hard times to keep their database updated due to most of the crew moving over to http://www.handgunlaw.us/ due to political infighting.

handgunlaw.us has a PDF file that lists reciprocity with an update of 9/5/06.

handgunlaw.us has State Laws updated 8/6/06 PDF file contains; specific law cited to allow CCW, deadly force, knife, chemical, and body armor.


 * Q&A Missouri information to add for questions about issues in Missouri.

After looking over this article; I've seen a few holes that need patching. Overall there has been much research completed.

You might change the NRA training webaddress:

For training and instruction:National Rifle Association

Its easier than sorting past other topics.

Keep safe and keep going.

ArmedCitizen 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

US Centred Article
I do not believe that this article should refer only to the United States. If I search for concealed weapon I am redirected here, and to my knowledge carrying concealed weapons is a practice in many countries. I am put the US bias tag back up until the article is fixed. Yours, Philip   Gronowski  Contribs  23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article addresses a practice that is only permitted in the United States for ordinary private citizens. Handguns are entirely banned in the UK, Japan, Australia, and many other countries.  There is thus no CCW equivalent there.  In other countries, such as Mexico, handgun possession is permitted, but only as allowed by law, and the laws generally do not permit concealed carry except for a few well-connected and powerful famous persons.  CCW is a US-centric practice, with a US-only terminology, with no known other country that widely permits concealed carry by arbitrary private citizens. Yes, some countries permit a few well-connected and very wealthy individuals to carry concealed weapons (e.g., Mexico, most of Latin America, parts of Africa, and also Eastern Europe.) But, I don't think the practice of "shall issue" for arbitrary private citizens who are not well-connected and wealthy exists other than in the US.  Hence, I don't think this is a US bias tagging point, but rather a US-centric practice.  Hence, no tag is needed.  If you are aware of a licensing system in any other country that makes handguns available for ordinary private citizens, being of no particular wealth or political-connections, then please add appropriate information.  Otherwise, the globalize tag is not needed. Yaf 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is overly US centric. If CCW is only a US phenomenon (which I highly doubt in any case), this article should provide that information, along with verifiable information etc. I tend to agree with posters above that the CCW article should be a general, non specific country-centric one, with links to more country-specific ones. !jim 08:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with that is, again, that this is an issue almost exclusive to the United States. There are roughly 50 people in all of Canada, for instance, who are liscenced to carry a handgun in public; and, from what I've read, a few tens of thousands in each Germany and Italy (primarily jewellers, bankers, etc.). Switzerland and the Czech Republic tightened their CCW laws in the past few years; I do, however, believe that Latvia and perhaps the other Baltic states have what equates to shall-issue concealed carry, and the practise is even more common in Israel than in the United States.

Unfortunately, there is simply not a lot of good information available on CCW in countries other than the United States, as opposed to the plethora of information on CCW in the U.S. User:Spock 156.34.64.9 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, this article should be titled something along the lines of "Concealed Carry Weapons in America". Otherwise, it should describe the situation in other countries. 24.3.142.198 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone knows anything about carry laws in other countries, feel free to write them up.--jdege 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course the article (topic, terminology) is centered on the US (just like an article about the Navy Seals or the Marines) because that is the only country where "Joe Blow"/John Smith might carry a gun AND (depending on the state) also a concealed gun.

BUT I would appreciate an introduction for the non-US reader who is unfamiliar with the arguments for and against concealed carry and what the issue is generally about. That would be great. --Soylentyellow 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing logic in crime rate reduction argument
I found the logic in the following paragraph confusing: States that have strict CCW or do not permit CCW had higher crime rate reductions than states that had more lax CCW laws. See the report by the Brady Campaign [1] Comparing crime rate reductions, instead of total numbers of crimes, is misleading, as crime rates have been falling nationally with the aging of the baby boom generation without regard to CCW law changes.[2] Looking at the total crime rates is perhaps more indicative, since by published statistics; "The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000)."[3] The Brady Campaign source cites the statistics that between '92 and '98, violent crime rates dropped an average of 30% in states that kept strict CCW laws v.s. 15% in states that adopted more lenient laws. While that certainly may not be a perfect indication of CCW leading to more crime, the argument that the stats are misleading due to falling national crime rates (as a result of aging baby boomers?) simply does not make sense. In fact, the comparison of total violent crime rate between the two classes of states is much more misleading since that does not take into account the fact that restrictive states could have higher crime rates regardless of CCW laws. At least the former stats normalizes the difference in total crime rate during the time period when some states adopted liberal CCW laws.

I propose the latter half of the paragraph be removed or at least tempered somewhat, but I don't want to make an edit before getting some feedback first. --Ddickison 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's the language in the article that is confusing, it's the argument that the language is attempting to describe that is confusing. And that's not something we're going to be able to fix with better editing.
 * --jdege 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy Sections
The section on advocacy for greater restriction of concealed carry is more of a counter argument to concealed carry restriction than an explanation of that movement. That section and the following one could use some retooling, and references to advocacy groups. Kborer 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I merged the two sections into a section on concealed carry politics. It could use some more global information, info on concealed carry groups, and more studies specifically aimed at concealed carry laws. Kborer 06:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii?
Regarding Hawaii's issuance or non-issuance of carry permits, the best source might be: http://hawaii.gov/ag/cpja/main/rs/sp_reports_0306/gunreg04.pdf

When reading this, remember that Hawaii is one of only a very few (three?) states that requires a permit to own a firearm. Most of the discussion of permits in this document are regarding ownership permits, not carry permits.

Regarding carry permits: Licenses to Carry

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2004, 263 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses and one (0.4%) was rejected due to disqualifying factors. (Notably, 2004 marks the first year in which the rejection rate for security officer carry permits did not exceed the rejection rate for regular longarm and handgun permit applications from the general public.) Five private citizens in the City & County of Honolulu applied for a concealed carry license and were denied at the discretion of the police chief.

From which I read that 1:, the chiefs have complete discretion regarding to whom they issue, 2: that they are granting carry licenses only to employees of private security firms, 3: applications by private citizens who are not employees of private security firms are uniformly denied, and 4: gun owners know that private citizens who are not employees of private security firms will be denied, and hence very few of them bother to apply.

--jdege 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Right or Privilege
A constitutional right can not be considered a privilege regardless of the jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction can claim the second amendment is a privilege, what would stop them from claiming the first amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights is a privilege as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.189.179 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The latest reversion of the "right or privilege" language includes the comment that it's a right in some jurisdictions, and a privilege in others. This is absurd.


 * Rights are universal. They're not granted by government.  So if it's a right, it's a right recognized in some jurisdictions, and infringed in others.  Or if it's a privilege, it's a privilege granted in some jurisdictions, and not granted in others.


 * We can argue about whether it's a right, or not. But the idea that it's a right in some places but not in others is simple nonsense.


 * --jdege 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Second Amendment says nothing about concealed carry. The right to keep and bear arms is distinctly different from the right to keep and carry concealed weapons per state jurisprudence case law, at least in some states.  See the state court section discussion in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article for the two distinctly different state interpretations on this (in Kentucky and Arkansas, for the two earliest trend-setting examples).  In some jurisdictions, the Second Amendment right is interpreted as including the right to carry weapons concealed; it is  not interpreted this way in other jurisdictions.  Hence, the reason for the statement in the lead paragraph of this article for defining Carrying concealed weapon (CCW) as a privilege or right.  In many states that currently grant CCW licenses, CCW is considered a privilege.  Other states require no such license, recognizing CCW as being an inherent right of a citizen.  Pick the right jurisdiction, and your interpretation will hold water;  pick the wrong jurisdiction, and you will be imprisoned for a very, very long time.  Yaf 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vermont and Alaska agree with your "right" argument. None of the other states with CCW consider it to be a right, but instead define it as a privilege that is licensed.  The most NPOV treatment is to leave the ambiguity of a "privilege or right" in the lead, with the details in the article defining where it is which.  We don't want to get people in trouble by becoming court test cases, by assuming it is automatically a right.  Yaf 16:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether CCW is a right or a privilege is a matter of debate, and we needn't come down on one side or another. But we want to avoid internally-inconsistent language, like "it is a right in some jurisdictions".  "It is recognized as a right in some jurisdictions" makes sense.  "It is a right in some jurisdictions" does not.
 * --jdege 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on this one, Jdege. I think we can all agree that the RKBA is per-se a right (after all, the 2nd amendment specifically says so). The issue of whether it is an individual or a collective right and how it applies to CCW-related aspects of the law is vital, IMHO, and shouldn't be ignored but there's a time and a place for this type of debate.
 * And as long as we don't have a SCOTUS ruling that clarifies the issue one way or another, it's probably best to stick to the somewhat ambiguous phrasing we have right now (ie. "it is recognized as a right in some jurisdictions"). Personally, I'm okay with "it's a right or a privilege", too, but I find "it is a right in some jurisdictions" a bit problematic (at least as it pertains to the status quo here in the US). I suggest we either stick with "a right or a privilege" or "is recognized as right in some jurisdictions" or we rewrite the section to reflect a less US-centric POV (ie. take, for instance, most European countries where CCW falls squarely into the 'privilege' category). Seed 2.0 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stopping Power
The Stopping Power section of the Concealed Carry article seems very subjective. It claims that in the aftermath of the Harold Fish conviction that some people with concealed carry licenses have stopped carrying more powerful handguns such as the 10mm, or are electing to carry full metal jacket bullets rather than the more effective jacketed hollow points. I followed the three references provided. Two were general local news coverage of the trial and sentencing with no mention of caliber or bullet type, and the third was an obscure online forum with only a few people discussing the Fish sentence. Only one person suggested changing from JHP bullets to FMJ to avoid a potential legal problem with a prosecutor or jury, and two other people objected.

From talking to many people with concealed carry licenses and reading numerous opinions, I believe the opinion expressed in the Stopping Power section is very misleading and represents an extreme minority opinion. Most people choose smaller calibers such as 9mm because the pistols are smaller, lighter and easier to carry all the time, while a 10mm can weight 2.5 times as much and is much more difficult to conceal. Most CCW license holders seem to believe that shooting should be the ultimate last resort, and one of the many bad effects will be legal problems, and they will generally occur regardless of caliber choice, bullet type, etc. By far the largest determining factor will be the justification for the shooting, and the rest will be of much less consequence.

I think the entire reference to 10mm and hollow point bullets should be removed, and perhaps replaced with information concerning the tradeoff between effectiveness and the ability to comfortably carry and conceal a weapon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blayne (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Concealed Carry
I'm not sure that the statement "Individuals who do not wish to be vistims" is encyclopedic, and IMO is very POV. It implies that people who do not carry, do so because they wish to be victims. Unless a citable evidence for this statement can be produced, e.g. a psychology journal article, I think this statement should be deleted. ImmunolPhD 09:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Seataffer, this is my first contribution so I am expressing everything here): ..This whole article (carrying concealed weapon) has such a progun bias, it seems the author is more trying to impress fellow gun enthusiasts & the uninitiated than speak of the pros & cons of carrying concealed guns in america. .. The author talks about 'stopping power' as if it pertained to carrying a concealed pistol whereas 'stopping power' truly belongs in a ballistics section. .. the author gives a one sided positive view of ccw without presenting any major opposing argument; he gives a ~dozen reasons why carrying concealed guns are (supposedly) beneficial but does not give reasons why americans did not want ccw laws to begin with; indeed, most all major polls prior to their referendum on ccw, had voters voting AGAINST the enactment of ccw laws in their state (including texas!), by large margins, generally 60% to 70% AGAINST passage of shall issue. Missouri referendum in 1999 iirc failed 52-48, but shall issue was later enacted. .. The article doesn't mention that republican legislatures pushed thru shall issue ccw against majority will & at the behest of the gun lobby, nra in particular. .. author lists gun organizations GALORE but does not even mention the foremost guncontrol website, the brady campaign. .. this entire article should be withdrawn & replaced by one which provides both arguments - this is a terrible entry to reflect the true position on carrying concealed guns in america, a terrible entry.


 * Sure. We've had dozens of states pass these laws, and not a single state ever repeal one of these laws, against the will of the vast majority of citizens, because of the political pressure of the evil NRA.
 * Yep. That explains it...
 * This issue has been pushed in each state by local groups. The NRA rarely provided much support.  (Though the NRA was always quick to take credit for it after it actually passed.)
 * And the supposed polls do a far better job of demonstrating how push polling can yield the result you want. The results are very dependent upon the wording of the question.  Ask if individuals who receive training and obtain a permit should be allowed to carry, and a sizable majority says yes.  Ask if the police should allowed to forbid a permit an individual who had obtained the training and met the requirements, without cause, and an overwhelming majority says no.
 * If, in fact, the majority opposed these laws as vehemently as you claim they do, they'd have managed to get at least one of them repealed. But they never have.
 * --jdege 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles don't have "an author", but many authors. You are free to edit the article as you see fit if you think it's biased. --70.142.42.81 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning this up
I am not part of the FAWP, nor do I particularly know anything about Concealed weapons; however, I believe that this article could be cleaned up fairly easily. The problems as I see them are:
 * POV - this includes many section headers
 * lack of Nuetral, 3rd- party sources
 * General flow/prose needs to be revised.

That said, I think that there's enough base info that we can hack and slash/reword the POV stuff, and be left with a smaller but perhaps more concise article, from which we can add to. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is Not
I don't care if you're a gun fanboy or just do not understand what Wikipedia's about. However the part you're reverting which I removed from Carrying concealed weapon, clearly violates WP:NOT. Read: ''Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.'' I'm removing it once more; if you have common sense, you will let me. I hope that this is just a misunderstanding. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have restored the vandalism of data removal without discussion here first. It is generally considered vandalism to remove large amounts of articles with cited references without first having some discussion on the talk page. The goal is to improve the article, not to eliminate it. Yaf 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above removal was not vandalism because it is removing text that goes against Wikipedia policy. Huge chunks of this article are instructional in nature, and David Fuchs's removal was correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.133.86.86 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I've removed it again. Yaf, I will go to arbitration about this if I have to. There's no need to have a discussion because it directly violates what wikipedia is not- no consensus is needed. If you really want to, open an RfC and ask everyone if they think it is; the outcome will be the same. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 11:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest we take this to RfC before deleting large amounts of cited material that has been arrived at over many months through consensus. Have reverted until a new consensus is reached. Thank you. Yaf 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always thought that the section that is being questioned was of questionable value, and something of a digression from the topic of the page. But I'm with Yaf in that changes of this scope should not be made without discussion beforehand.
 * So I say we leave it as it has been, for so long, and talk about it.
 * --jdege 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Weapon choices for concealed carry
There is a dispute requiring other opinions on whether or not this section violates WP:NOT, and if it should be removed upon such grounds. 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * I see this as being a clear violation of the above facet of WP:NOT. Features extensiv 'how to' information: starting from its leading-in "There is no single "best" weapon for concealed-carry usage, because the decision involves trading various pros and cons based on each user's priorities, location, etc. Points to consider include the following:", it sounds blatantly biased by its very nature as well. Suggest removal. --Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The matters discussedi in this section seem to me to be inherently subjective, and sometimes little more than fashion advice. It's not germane to the main topic - it has nothing to do with the dispute, or the laws, and the article as a whole would have better focus and flow without it.--jdege 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The topics discussed in this section are cited, and are likely to be of interest to anyone interested in applying for a CCW permit or license in any of the 48 states of the United States where CCW is permitted. This section is not a recipe, nor a how-to, nor a trivia list, nor an advocacy POV push, but is instead cited information that is germane and which is likely to be of interest to anyone coming to the article to learn more about Carrying concealed weapon information.  As for the claim of this section being blatantly biased, well, it does assume that one is interested in CCW topics.  For someone who neither is interested in CCW information, nor knows anything about CCW, or who lives in a country where CCW is illegal, it likely would appear to be advocacy of illegal activity.  Perhaps so in other countries, but in the U.S., CCW is legal in 48 of the 50 states and Wikipedia information concerning Weapon choices for concealed carry has value. Yaf 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Keep. Section provides valuable information for anyone actually interested in applying for a CCW license or permit in the United States. Yaf 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove Section is in violation of WP:NOT #4: If anyone wants such information, he should consult the repective websites at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy (or enmity, for that matter) of weapon use. Nevrdull 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. (..)


 * Remove As per above ImmunolPhD 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove As per above; also, it's OR per se and tangential at best, however useful it may be. --MattShepherd 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

''Have closed RfC as it is obvious that the content is not perceived to be of value. This discussion is preserved as a history of the discussion.'' Yaf 06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest move to new article
The tag that says this doesn't discuss the content from a world-view is certainly correct: thus, I suggest we rename it to something like Concealed Carry in the United States or somesuch. Suggestions? Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be an obvious choice, since very few countries have similar laws, and the article discusses mainly the situation in the US. --Nevrdull 13:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well once the RfC and whatnot wraps up I guess I'll move it. Then I can remove one blasted tag from the article. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re world view: The uninitiated Wikipedian who is unfamiliar with the subject (like myself) would surely appreciate a short introduction as to *why* this is an issue at all and what is the rationale being for and against concealed carry (in the United States). --Soylentyellow 20:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Righto. I hadn't even looked at the intro yet. I'll get on it. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Civil liberties"
i find the paragraph on 'civil liberties' to be somewhat POVish. it has been added by a single IP. also, i don't know, but citing only the opinion of a pro-gun group isn't really balanced in my opinion.

addendum: on a more personal note - singling out the right to keep and bear arms without taking it in to proper context, i.e. other, even more vital rights (freedom of speech, freedom to worship, etc.pp.): I would find that to be improper interpretation of the law, but maybe that's just me..

Comments on the parapgraph, anyone? --Nevrdull 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't got a complaint about the content of the paragraph - it is a significant strain of thought within the debate. The section title, though, has me expected a very different content.  Maybe we just need a new title, or to remove the title and to insert the paragraph within another section? --jdege 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't know: the title points to the issue of gun-ownership in general, which isn't even contested in this case. so i would suggest the paragraph is irrelevant to the article, since it only considers the granted right to concealed carry, not the prohibition of guns in genral. furthermore, as i have stated above, it doesn't satisfy NPOV if one cites an op-ed piece of the gun owners of america ( i.e. a pro-gun lobby group) without presenting a contrarian point of view. just saying that 'some' have a different POV isn't quite enough.


 * addendum: i've added the NPOV-tag, because i find that this problem pervades the article in general --Nevrdull 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have removed NPOV tag from the article, as the reason given was that article was written in accordance with the Second Amendment. Just because the article is written in accordance with the U.S. Bill of Rights and existing law is no reason to insert a POV tag, unless you are proposing we need to include unlawful points of view (criminal views?), too. Yaf 23:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of Definition
The opening definition is technically inaccurate as it stands now. CCW (carrying concealed weapon/concealed carry) is not a "legal authorization for private citizens to carry," it is the Act of carrying concealed weapons. A distinction needs to be made between the Act (definition), common and legal usages of the term, and the legal aspects. Certainly, "CCW" is also a common term used to describe a legal charge brought against persons who illegally carry concealed weapons. Authorization -- whether a state simply allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons (as a right; e.g., Vermont) or prohibits citizens from doing so outright or not without some form of approval process and/or licensing -- is a matter pertaining to the legal aspects of the Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.71.30 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

State Total?
The opening of this article states "Currently, 47 U.S. states permit adults who have applied, have no criminal record, and (in some cases) meet training requirements to carry one or more handguns in a concealed manner." Isn't this up to 48 with Nebraska? Later in the article it sayst that only Wisconsin and Illinois prohibit CCW. Marknoble 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... We really should have a definitive list on that, although a list of states that don't allow concealed carry at all would be far more sensible than listing all those that do. Dick Clark 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Still wrong - as of 12 August 2007 the article, immediately below the table of contents, states that thirty-nine (39) states have shall-issue permitting, nine (39 + 9 = 48) have may-issue, two have no permit requirement (48 + 2 = 50), and two do not permit CCW at all (50 + 2 = 52!). Is this because someone thought that requiring no permit is equivalent to shall-issue?  72.12.73.171 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My guess is your source of information includes Puerto Rico and Guam. Admiral Norton 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a fact sheet called "Right-to-Carry 2007", on the NRA-ILA web site. I believe this information should be incorporated into the article.  I would summarize it as follows:
 * – Illinois and Wisconsin (2 states) have no concealed carry.
 * – Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island (11 states) are "may issue". The fact sheet says that, of those, Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa are "fairly administered", i.e., in contrast to the other eight, you've got a good chance of actually getting a permit.
 * – Alaska and Vermont (2 states) do not require a permit to carry. Alaska will provide a permit on a "shall issue" basis for purposes of reciprocity with other states (and so is sometimes counted as a "shall issue" state, including in the fact sheet).
 * – The other 35 states are "shall issue".
 * The fact sheet doesn't talk about Puerto Rico or Guam. Are they "may issue"? I don't know.  Then there's the District of Columbia.  As readers of this discussion page are probably already aware, D.C. does not permit the possession of handguns, a law that was voided by a federal appeals court and is being appealed to the Supreme court.  — Mudwater  06:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The animated GIF agrees with the NRA, with three exceptions. The NRA lists AL and CT as "reasonable" may-issue.  That's a distinction that seems pointless to me.  The NRA used to list them as shall-issue, and I continue to do so.


 * And the NRA also lists IA as "reasonable" may-issue, and with that I completely disagree. Permits in IA are issued by the county sheriffs.  Some sheriffs are reasonable, but some refuse to issue entirely.  Which is exactly the way things work in California and most other may-issue states.


 * --jdege 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the law in Alabama and Connecticut say that the state must issue permits to qualifying individuals? Or does it say that the final decision is up to some authority (attorney general, county sheriff, etc.)?  That is the distinction between "shall issue" and "may issue".  If the decision is up to some authority, but they always or almost always issue a permit, that's still "may issue".  — Mudwater  19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not as straightforward as that. You can't just read the statute and see whether it says "shall" or "may".  And the question isn't just whether the issuing authority has discretion - the issuing authority always has discretion.  The question is what limits there are to that discretion.


 * I'm most familiar with Minnesota's law, since I was one of the many who advocated for it. Under the 2003 shall-issue law, there are a number of criteria that are strict disqualifiers. If any are true, you may not be issued a permit.  There's no discretion about it.


 * But the sheriff may deny someone for whom none of these disqualifiers hold true, but he needs to justify that denial. And as justification he can use only documented incidents involving behavior by the applicant.


 * That makes Minnesota a shall-issue state. If the sheriff need not justify a denial, that state is may-issue.  If the justifications can involve criteria other than the specific documented behavior of the applicant ("those" people don't need guns), then it's may issue.


 * AIUI, AL and CT are states in which the statutes don't specifically require justification, but in which the courts have a record of reversing denials when the issuing authorities can't provide one.


 * --jdege 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's complicated all right. It's like it's a gray area or a judgment call whether some states are "may issue" or "shall issue".  I'm understanding you to say that Alabama and Connecticut should be considered "shall issue" and Iowa should be considered "may issue".  Suppose there was a consensus on that.  That would make 2 "no issue" states (IL, WI), 9 "may issue" (CA, DE, HI, IA, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI), 37 "shall issue", and 2 "no permit required" (AK, VT), right?  In a related question, would it not be best to list in the article the specific states in each of those four categories?  And also, what would be a good reference to cite for this (especially if not using the NRA-ILA counts)?  — Mudwater  03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two states that do not require permits, two states that do not issue permits, and 47 states that issue permits. And yes, that adds up to 51.


 * My count is 2 unrestricted, 37 shall-issue, 9 may-issue, and 2 no-issue.


 * The NRA's count is 2 unrestricted, 35 shall-issue, 3 reasonable may-issue, 8 may-issue, and 2 no-issue.


 * handgunlaw.us has 37 shall-issue, 11 may-issue, and 2 no-issue. And breaks the shall-issue into 7 states that don't recognize permits issued to non-residents and 30 states that do. (Michigan, for example, which recognizes Florida permits only when held by Florida residents.)


 * Given the fuzzy boundaries, and the different criteria used, I don't think it's at all necessary for the article to include a count at all.


 * --jdege 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Current intro: "Privilege"
The use of the term "privilege" violates WP:NPOV. While some feel that CCW is a privilege to be granted by local government, similar to drivers' license, others feel that concealed carry is a right granted by the US Constitution and, where infringed by local government, is a violation of Federal law.

The introduction, by defining CCW as a privilege, does not acknowledge this and therefore is not as neutral as it could be.

69.181.2.4 18:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In the wording of the US Constitution, the rights are "unalienable" and are not "granted by the US Constitution" or any governmental power. This may seem to be a semantic or almost trivial difference, but it is not. A priviledge granted by government can be revoked by government. An unalienable right, such as th right to liberty or the right to self determination or the right to self defense and self preservation cannot.
 * Um, the Constitution does not have the word "unalienable rights", that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, while being a great document, is not legally binding. Furthermore, the only rights that the Declaration addresses as unalienable are "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".  You could argue that liberty covers all rights granted in the constitution, or you could argue that they just cover certain rights.  That being said, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding. Dunstvangeet 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Merge "issue" articles with this main Carry article
I believe that this article would be nicely suited to the smaller "issue" articles that are generally short stubs and discuss one aspect of concealed carry. For example Shall-issue, No-issue, May-issue, Unrestricted (gun laws). Arthurrh 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment below moved from Talk:Shall-issue:
 * I definitely agree with this. Bloodshedder 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment below moved from Talk:Unrestricted (gun laws):
 * I agree. Most of what the listed articles contain mirrors what the Concealed Carry in the United States contains.  Having the same information in two places is likely to lead to disagreements between the articles if one is updated without the other being updated. --Rich 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I too think the proposal to merge the other articles into this one makes sense. As per the "merge from multiple" template on this article, we are talking about merging in the following articles: Shall-issue, No-issue, May-issue, Unrestricted (gun laws), and Weapon possession.  — Mudwater  13:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Finished Arthurrh (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks. However, there's still some cleanup to be done, to eliminate double redirects.  For example, "Shall issue" is now a double redirect (it redirects to "Shall-issue", which redirects to "Concealed carry in the United States#Shall-issue"), so if you go there you'll end up on a redirect page instead of an article.  To find and fix these, it's necessary to go to the former articles (new redirect pages) and click on "What links here".  The articles that need to have double redirects fixed will be indented under the redirects.  See Double redirects for a full explanation.  — Mudwater  20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify this a bit, it is not necessary to change all the articles that now have double redirects. Instead it's only necessary to fix the double redirects themselves, as explained on Double redirects.  To use the above example, "Shall issue" should be changed to redirect to "Concealed carry in the United States#Shall-issue" instead of to "Shall-issue".  — Mudwater  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done what I could. Arthurrh (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There was still a little bit of redirect weirdness going on, and after playing around with it for a while I figured out it had to do with capitalization in come of the redirect pages and the existence of another redirect page called "Concealed Carry in the United States" which redirects to "Concealed carry in the United States". I changed the caps on the affected pages and I'm pretty sure we're all set.  Thanks again for doing the merge.  — Mudwater  02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminological research

 * Criminological research: There is a great deal of advocacy and agenda-driven research on conceal and carry laws -- but there is no consensus in criminological research of the type represented in this article.  Most criminologists would argue that more guns = more crime although the most sophisticated, comparative research indicates that there is no relationship between the laws and the amounts of crime.  While this is not my particular area of expertise, I am a criminologist.


 * Extrajuice 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)ExtrajuiceExtrajuice 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don Kates disagrees with you:
 * 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).
 * Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior--though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.


 * The difficulty of enforcement crucially undercuts the violence-reductive potential of gun laws. Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm. A leading English analyst's pessimistic view has been summarized as follows: "[I]n any society the number of guns always suffices to arm the few who want to obtain and use them illegally ...."


 * Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.


 * Whether shall-issue laws reduce crime levels or have no effect is an open question. That they do not increase rates of violent crime has been clearly demonstrated.  That gun control measures aimed at the general populace do not reduce rates of violent crime has similarly been clearly demonstrated.


 * --jdege 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's your article and your encyclopedia. I just finished reading a number of peer reviewed studies for class. First, in a general way, more guns (not conceal and carry) are so clearly related to more crime it is not even a question. Second, longitudinal studies significantly more sophisticated than the ones cited in this article see none, zero, zzizzer, nada deterrence of crime. But as I say, it is your encyclopedia, that's why I mention it in the discussion.

Extrajuice 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)ExtrajuiceExtrajuice 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which "peer-reviewed" studies? The batch that the Joyce Foundation just finished paying for? --jdege 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating External Links
I think we need to eliminate some, if not all, of the external links (WP is not a link farm - see: WP:EL). Any suggestions on what needs to go? At the very least it's easy to see that some of the sites listed do not qualify as a reliable source. PeetMoss 01:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a start by removing things that obviously don't have anything directly to do with concealed carry. Probably we could go further. Arthur 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)


 * I would be strongly in favor of keeping a small number of external links -- maybe half a dozen or so -- for the most important national groups related to concealed carry in the U.S. I would also be in favor of including both pro gun rights and pro gun control links.  A lot of people who edit this article have strong opinions on this subject -- I know I do -- but since it's an encyclopedia we should try to have some balance.  There are two articles I know of that are already doing all this quite well in my opinion -- Gun politics in the United States and Gun laws in the United States (by state).  (In the Gun politics article, check out the comments embedded in the External links section asking people not to add more links without agreement on the talk page first.)  — Mudwater  01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there is a WP guideline or well established precedence for using external links to provide some balance. After reviewing the links the only one I can prove comes from a reliable source is the "NRA-ILA guide to gun laws" and it also meets the criteria for containing material directly related to this article that cannot be included within the article. Because the burden of proving an external link meets WP guidelines falls on the person placing the link I am going to delete the rest of the links. PeetMoss 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned trying to be balanced, I was thinking of the standard Wikipedia guidelines about an article having a neutral point of view. And I still think it might make sense to have more than one external link for this article.  On the other hand, what you're saying makes sense too.  The NRA-ILA link is a reliable source, and contains valuable reference material directly related to the article.  I want to think about this some more, and I'd be interested in what other editors have to say, but my initial reaction is that having just that one link seems reasonable.  — Mudwater  14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Balance is an excellent goal, but all sources must always pass WP:RS and links must pass WP:EL, which means they have to add something useful to the exact topic of the article. Most of the pro gun-control links had nothing to do with concealed carry and simply don't belong on this article. Arthur 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurrh (talk • contribs)

rtc.gif
The link to rtc.gif was deleted from this page, because the image rtc.gif was deleted. The image was deleted after a very short and content-free discussion, of which the most meaningful remark was "delete per nom".

Can anyone tell me what that is supposed to mean? --jdege 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted SaltyBoatr's revision of 16:33, 26 April 2008 for the following reasons:
 * The graphic is a graphical summary / diagram of the progression of concealed carry through the states over the years. The diagram does not advance any new unpublished claims or arguments but merely summarizes existing claims in a diagram.  As such, it is explicitly permitted using the Original images section of WP:NOR
 * RTC.gif is licensed to Wikimedia Commons, and is not really different from any Wikipedia editor creating this graphic himself or herself and donating it to the Wikipedia Commons.
 * If the graphic is shown to be wrong or misleading, then it can be removed. But if it is substantially accurate, then it is protected by WP:NOR and should stay.  Wikipedia is full of such contributed diagrams that are generated or donated by editors and that have not been explicitly published in a normal reliable source.  See the page Pentagon for an example. kevinp2 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That graphic conveys information from the Radical Gun Nuttery! website, and is not an "image" as defined by by WP:OI which provides an exception to WP:NOR for "images (that) generally do not propose unpublished ideas". The rtc.gif "image" most definitely does propose unpublished ideas, (the time line of concealed carry law in the states), published from that website.  Subject to WP:V policy, the rtc.gif "image" is not allowed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any kind of dispute about the time line of concealed carry? The year in which a state became a concealed carry state is well known and published, as evidenced by the public debate for every state that has enacted this kind of law.  All we have to do is cite the rtd.gif page with links to previously published citations for that state and that year. SaltyBoatr, you seem to be wikilawyering to suppress a useful graphic based upon a distaste for its source.  Perhaps you should choose your battles carefully.  The graphic is correct and by forcing people to cite every state in every frame, you will waste their time, inevitably lose the battle and lose goodwill.  I ask you to please reconsider your stand here.  There is no POV here.  The graphic illustrates a simple timeline, no more. kevinp2 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By way of comparison, please see the article Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, one of numerous timeline articles. It even uses the wiki tag timeline kevinp2 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your sourcing for your assertion that this graphic is accurate? All I see is the sourcing to the Radical Gun Nuttery! website.  When Wikipedia relies on dubious sourcing, like self published websites, our reputation suffers.  Use reliable sourcing please.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas, Wikipedia does not have much of a reputation that would suffer. Self published websites are not automatically dubious.  This is a conceit that pervades the publishing world - that because an institution (with its own bias and agenda) publishes something, that information becomes automatically reliable.  This particular graphic is accurate.  (I notice you are no longer contending that a timeline is an unpublished idea).  We can spend a lot of time and energy (that could have been spent on something else) to cite every state in the graphic and prove to you that it is accurate.  Is that what you want?  I notice that nobody else is asking for this.  kevinp2 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Replying to your sentences in order: 1) Wikipedia has a good reputation, proven by the fact that is trusted and widely used globally as a reference, thanks in large part due to adherence to the WP:V policy. 2) So what?  Many websites are dubious and you have the burden of proof to show that this website is not dubious.  3) So what?  That "conceit" is also found in WP:V.   4) I ask again, what is your sourcing for your assertion that this graphic is accurate?  I accept that it might be accurate, but so what?  5) It doesn't matter what kind of idea a timeline might be. 6) I am asking no more than that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  What fact-checking reputation does the Radical Gun Nuttery! website have?   7) So what?  WP:V is not up to a vote of editors.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your response is not very helpful. I am more interested in improving this article and its accuracy rather than fixating upon the badness of Radical Gun Nuttery!   WP:OI does in fact protect and even encourage this graphic.  I notice that you haven't provided even ONE instance of the graphic being inaccurate.  Other editors are in fact entitled to read the relevant policies and weigh in on how to apply them to this graphic.  I am confident that other editors will agree that WP:V and WP:OI when read together coherently, permit and encourage this graphic.  Your opinion may vary, but bear in mind that if you insist upon taking a policy to an unwarranted extreme in one case, you should be consistent and do the same with all your own edits.  kevinp2 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly, such image is not acceptable. As per your comment: Alas, Wikipedia does not have much of a reputation that would suffer.. my question would be: why do you bother editing if that is your perception?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * Look at the Wikipedia policy about sources and the types of sourcing that is acceptable, click this link WP:Verifiability to read that policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Carry in vehicles
Regarding the statement "most states allow carry in vehicles without restrictions"; I am not aware of any state that permits the carry of firearms in vehicles without restrictions. What states permit the unrestricted carrying of firearms within the passenger compartment? (By a 1986 Federal law, handgun carry in a trunk, with the firearm unloaded, is protected as long as one is traveling from and to a part of the US that allows such firearms. But, this is not the same as carrying open or concealed within a passenger compartment of a vehicle.)  Yaf (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, my edit hardly qualifies as a wild claim since I did not post it in the article. With respect to my edit, in the state of Florida any non-felon may carry a loaded weapon without a CCW in any vehicle. I'll concede that there may be some requirements because in Florida the weapon must be in a holster. The same applies in Georgia.Patchogue (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Regarding "What states permit the unrestricted carrying of firearms within the passenger compartment?" -- Missouri, for one. (See 571.030 RSMo, subsection 3.) I would imagine Vermont and Alaska allow it as well. 69.179.181.16 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yaf,

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

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

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


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


 * All this said, I am not sure how to address the numerous technicalities in the article without confusing readers; it is all very complex. And, our discussion has only involved Florida law.  I have not discussed the differences among other states; some, such as Illinois, have county by county by city differences in vehicle carry laws, without any state pre-emption such as in Florida! Any ideas how to address this, without getting readers in trouble with law enforcement officers?  -- Yaf (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Non-compliant signs
"However, many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, and the argument could be made that, if a permit holder is looking for and sees a sign, and studies it long enough to determine it does not meet specifications and is therefore nonbinding, he nevertheless cannot fail to infer its intent, and thus, due to a court decision, such a sign could be held to be as binding as an oral statement that concealed weapons are not welcome, which does not have to be a recitation of the exact text of the notice."

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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