Talk:Constitutional carry

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

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

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

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


 * Your own bias is showing. No US state has "unrestricted carry."  Every single one of them restricts carry by children, felons, the mentally ill, drunk abusers and so forth.  Every single ons of them restricts carry in certain locations.  Your use of the term "unrestricted carry" is an attempt to impose a false image of exaggerated laxity.


 * "Constitutional carry" is the term that has been used for decades now to describe laws that allow concealed carry of weapons without the requirement that the carrier possess a state-issued license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.210.174 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional thoughts and suggestions for review and discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * My main point is that no matter what the media chooses to call it, the term is still misleading and inaccurate. In the United States, the final authority in determining whether or not legislation is Constitutional is the United States Supreme Court [naturally barring, of course, amendment to the Constitution]. And in District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court held that: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."


 * For that reason, it is my strong belief that the United States Constitution, based on the clear and concise reasoning of the US Supreme Court, does not offer protection for what is termed "constitutional carry" in this entry. To keep the language as is would be misleading; encyclopedias are academic projects, and academia in it's ideal strives for clear, accurate and impartial language when dealing with technical matters of Law.


 * -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  15:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Vermont Constitutional Carry was based on the Vermont State Constitution right to keep and bear arms provision, not on Amendment II to the US Constitution. My home state Tennessee State Constitution RKBA reserves to the legislature the authority to regulate the public wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime, with minimum inconvenience to lawful use of arms. Currently that is by outlawing carry for offense, and allowing carry for defense with a permit. If the state decides to allow carry for defense without a permit, as Constitutional Carry, it would be under Tennessee State Constitution Article I Section 26 right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. While "concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues", concealed weapons permissions have also been upheld under the Federal Second Amendment and under state RKBA provisions. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. See The New Hampshire HB 536 (current pending legislation for 2012) as well as Georgia HB 679 dubbed the "Constitutional Carry Act". (Also pending legislation for 2012.) Also see:  http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-14805-it-is-not-just-nik-clarks-.html.  Using the currently-favored term is not a matter of POV, it is a matter timeliness. WP is not a time capsule. We need to keep current. BobbieCharlton (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Literally this would be like naming the article on the estate tax "death tax". Literally just a meaningless loaded term rightists made up as a means of propaganda for their desired policy positions (which are in no way required by the constitution, and in any such case have never been ruled to be required). But it's the name of the article? Why don't we rename the article on "pro-life" movement the "anti-choice" movement. It is depressing to see that the propaganda of rightist ideology so thoroughly has infiltrated society that this has stood for over a decade with no correction.2601:140:8980:106F:C850:D84:9F23:F4F1 (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What are the WP:BESTSOURCES in this article, and what term do they use most often use without WP:SCAREQUOTES? Llll5032 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Requested move 11 March 2015

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

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

Constitutional Carry → Constitutional carry – Currently the sentence case version is redirecting to the uppercase version, but, per the WP:TITLEFORMAT policy, article titles should be in sentence case. Putting it in uppercase gives the notion of constitutional carry WP:UNDUE weight. The majority of WP:RS use sentence case when referring to the topic. Lightbreather (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources I've seen, a few of them do capitalize the term, but but many - probably most - do not. I support this change. --Mdak06 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom Red Slash 17:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


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

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


 * As explained at WP:NNC, the contents of an article don't have to be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term -- that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. With that being said, I agree that it would be preferable to remove the material about the legislation that has been introduced but not passed.  Every year, many gun laws are proposed in many states.  Some end up passing, but most don't.  And, yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper -- see WP:NOTNEWS.  While it would be possible to argue this question either way, I think that for most Wikipedia articles about gun laws, including this one, it's better to leave out proposed laws that have not been enacted. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to remove it. If anyone disagrees, voice your opinion here. Terrorist96 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that the number of constitutional carry states has significantly increased in the past five years, I have no objection. When this article was initially created it would not have been much of an article without the attempts. As of now (with 9 states having a form of constitutional carry) and several other "partial" states, I have no strong objection to the deletion of that section.


 * I will also concede that it is true that many, many bills are introduced each year. If there is interest in revising this section, it could be done with the stipulation that only bills that proposed permitless carry and passed at least one legislative house body be mentioned (since that is significant progress beyond the introduction of a bill). Mdak06 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

A question for everyone:

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Is there a definition of 'sheath'? It might be the case that non- belt or shoulder holster carry would be covered under the term 'sheath' (however, I've never heard of the term 'sheath' used in connection to a pistol.  Perhaps, it might be thought of as similar to one of those slip on/off rifle 'cases'.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.194.27 (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it definitely counts as constitutional carry and should be added. We can put a disclaimer the same way we have disclaimers for Idaho and Wyoming. Terrorist96 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that some other news outlets/blogs/etc. are calling it constitutional/permitless carry, I guess we'll have to as well. Perhaps labeling it as "ambiguous" the way that Arkansas is labeled "disputed" would work? It only exempts specific types of containers, and does not simply exempt any form of concealment.


 * IMO, these carrying methods are open to interpretation under this law (regarding whether a permit is required or not):


 * belly band holsters (is this a "belt holster" or not?)
 * undershirt holsters (is this a "shoulder holster" or not?)
 * bra holsters (is this a "shoulder holster" or not?)


 * Under the law, I think these carrying methods would still require a permit:


 * concealed ankle holster (unless covered under "sheath")
 * carrying w/o a holster in one's back pocket
 * Mexican carry


 * In short, I think they wrote the law poorly. I'm not sure if "sheath" is defined elsewhere in the code or not. I guess the bottom line is that if others are calling it Constitutional carry, it makes sense for us to do so, even if it is somewhat misleading. Mdak06 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927161432/http://www.mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_91af16b9-41a4-58aa-ab65-126c61a2b789.html to http://www.mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_91af16b9-41a4-58aa-ab65-126c61a2b789.html

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

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

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

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

New Hampshire
NH just passed SB12, moving them to constitutional carry.

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

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

-Deathsythe (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it'll be added when the governor signs it. NRA is an acceptable source.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005153634/http://www.arkansascarry.com/component/content/article/1-latest/3785-constitutional-carry-in-arkansas.html to http://www.arkansascarry.com/component/content/article/1-latest/3785-constitutional-carry-in-arkansas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516053444/http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/AmdHtmH/HB0271GovVeto.pdf to http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/AmdHtmH/HB0271GovVeto.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110922194930/http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0210W%24BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=0271&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find to http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws11/LAW0210W%24BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=0271&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find

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

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

Illinois - Limited Permitless Carry
Technically under the ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in PEOPLE v. DIGGINS (2009) puts Illinois in a spot where theoretically it is legal to conceal a unloaded handgun as long as it's in a "case", which the court ruled to be pretty much anything that fully encloses another item and can be fully sealed which is ruled included even glove boxes and center consoles of cars; So under that ruling it's lawful to carry a unloaded handgun in Illinois as long as it's in some type of case which would include carrying it in a tablet case, or even the soft case that comes with some firearms like the Ruger LCP. --Thegunkid (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't include such limited forms of carry on this list, otherwise nearly every single state would need to be added.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why is New Mexico included considering the fact it has essentially the same exemption (unloaded concealed carry)? --Thegunkid (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference with NM is that it allows unloaded concealed carry on your person (actual carry) anywhere (in general) whereas Illinois it has to be unloaded and cased (not carried). Many states also allow loaded concealed carry without a permit on your own property, business, etc. but we don't count those. For example, in Virginia it's legal to have a loaded concealed handgun in your car's glove box without a permit. And I believe almost every state, if not every state, allows for possessing an unloaded firearm in a case without a permit.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's been multiple court rulings in the past 20 years from the State of Illinois that you are allowed to carry a unloaded firearm as long as it's unloaded and fully "encased"; with the Supreme Court ruling stating that anything that fully encloses an item, and zips, latches, snaps or buckles shut, legally constitutes a "case" per se; I.E. a unloaded gun, in a fanny pack constitutes a encased firearm thus exempt from needing a license to conceal carry. This was first brought to light by 1996 court ruling regarding a woman who was caught with a gun in her purse in a metal detector at an entrance to a court house, but because it was zipped up the State Court threw out the case; This lead to a trend in the 2000s called fanny pack carry which resulting in several arrests; with every single case reported on thrown out at the trial level. By the way an interesting note in the supreme court ruling is that the state argued in that the defendant's conduct was illegal specifically because he WASN'T CARRYING the handgun at the time of his arrest because he had it in his center console and not in a case he was carrying.

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

South Dakota becomes a Constitutional Carry state on July 1.
https://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Gov-Kristi-Noem-signs-constitutional-carry-bill-into-law-505145611.html 173.168.246.144 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Definition of Non-Resident
It seems that More than one definition of Non-Resident is used in this article. Some times referring to a person who is not a resident of the USA, and sometimes referring to a person who is not a resident of the subject state. It would be very helpful if someone who know the laws could clarify each usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I made an edit on Arizona's subsection to hopefully make it more clear. That was the only section that mentioned resident in terms of a legal permanent resident, not a resident of the state. All other references to "resident" and "nonresident" refer to a resident of the state, not a U.S. permanent resident.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Illinois Limited Permitless Carry - FOID Card
The article states Illinois has a limited form of permitless carry for unloaded handguns that are enclosed in a case. However, it also says that such handgun must be possessed in conjunction with an Illinois FOID.

It is required for an Illinois resident to possess a handgun. FOID_(firearms). The FOID is only issued by the Illinois State Police after a background check and is directly related to the possession of a firearm (which is prerequisite to carry one).

Given that a FOID is a permit, and that it is required to carry an unloaded handgun enclosed in a case, it does not seem appropriate to describe this as a limited form of permitless carry. A permit, specifically an Illinois FOID, is required. LonghornBob (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Further to this point. There are five shall issue states (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Washington) that do not have a training requirement to obtain a concealed carry license. If Illinois, which as the article states, requires a government issued FOID card to carry an unloaded handgun enclosed in case is considered a "permitless carry" state, then any state that does not require training to carry (but does require a license) could also be considered "permitless carry" in some sense. Thus, the inclusion of Illinois in this section should be removed. LonghornBob (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-residents carrying a unloaded firearm in a 'case' are exempt from the requirement to have FOID cards. 430 ILCS 65/2 (9). Thegunkid (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

North Dakota - Open Carry Without A Permit For Residents
As of May 1, 2022, this article stated that in North Dakota a permit is required for a resident to open carry a loaded handgun. However, the law applicable to the carrying of handguns openly, [https://casetext.com/statute/north-dakota-century-code/title-621-weapons/chapter-621-03-handguns/section-621-03-01-carrying-handgun-limitations-exceptions N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-03-01], states:


 * ''1. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, an individual may carry a handgun ifthe handgun is unloaded and in plain view or secured.


 * 2. A limitation under subsection 1 does not apply to:


 * a. An individual possessing a valid concealed weapons license from this state, an individual not otherwise precluded from possessing a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license under chapter 62.1-04 and who has possessed for at least thirty days a valid driver's license or nondriver identification card issued by the department of transportation, or an individual who has reciprocity under section 62.1-04-03.1.

The bolded language is the same language used in [https://casetext.com/statute/north-dakota-century-code/title-621-weapons/chapter-621-04-concealed-weapons/section-621-04-02-carrying-concealed-firearms-or-dangerous-weapons-license-distinctions N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-04-02] as the exception from the requirement that a resident have a license to concealed carry:


 * 1. An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, may not carry a firearm or dangerous weapon concealed unless the individual is licensed to do so or exempted under this chapter.


 * 2. An individual who is not otherwise precluded from possessing a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license under this chapter and who has possessed for at least thirty days a valid driver's license or nondriver identification card issued by the department of transportation may carry a firearm concealed under this chapter.

LonghornBob (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear to me where the statute specifies that a permit is required for a resident to openly carry a loaded handgun. LonghornBob (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I mostly use Handgunlaw.us when researching gun laws. I know on their page it says:
 * "Even though North Dakota is a Permitless Carry state both Residents and Non-residents must have a permit that North Dakota Issues or Honors to open carry in North Dakota"
 * Maybe you could reach out to the authors of that page and find out their reasoning behind it since they normally make sure to provide the most accurate information on their website. Legion566 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did. The author for now has concluded that a North Dakota resident is required to have a license to open carry a loaded handgun. Still not sure I understand why for the reasons stated above. I would note that Everytown and Giffords state North Dakota does not require a resident to have a permit to open carry. . But, I don't think this is definitive enough authority to make a change at this time, as most organizations still state North Dakota requires a permit for a resident to open carry a loaded handgun.  LonghornBob (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC); LonghornBob (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In addition to the Everytown and Giffords sources cited above, the NRA-ILA page on North Dakota gun laws states:


 * “Any person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm may carry an unloaded handgun openly or “secured,” without a license …” N.D. Cent. Code §§ 62.1-03-01(1)


 * “The above limitations on open carry do not apply in any of the circumstances listed in N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-03-01(2) – for example, anyone carrying at their own permanent or temporary residence or fixed place of business, or on other land owned by that person; anyone lawfully engaged in target shooting or in the field while lawfully hunting or trapping; any person with a valid license to carry concealed or who qualifies for permitless carry …”


 * I am in the process of compiling additional research to send to Handgunlaw.us for review. In particular, I believe the legislative history will be instructive on clarifying the proper status of whether a North Dakota resident may open carry a loaded handgun without a permit. LonghornBob (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Additional research has been submitted to Handgunlaw.us for review. In addition, below is the legislative history on HB 1169, which is informative.


 * On February 16, 2017, Amendment #7 to the bill was considered by the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The following exchange took place.


 * Representative Mock stated: “If that firearm, if this law [HB 1169] passes with the 04007 amendment [Amendment #7], when I wear the jacket, it can be loaded. But when I take the jacket off, it must be unloaded.”


 * Chairman Porter stated: “No. That’s not correct. Because they would have the same rights as a person with a conceal carry permit, and they can always have a loaded gun.”


 * Representative Lefor stated: “May I recommend Samantha Kramer come up?”


 * Samatha Kramer stated: “Section 1 of the 04007 version [Amendment #7] you all have and recommended by the subcommittee, that adds a new subdivision to Subsection 2 of 62.1-03-01 which takes care of the issue raised by Rep. Mock.”


 * Section 1 of Amendment #7 states:


 * A new subdivision to subsection 2 of Section 62.1-03-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:


 * An individual who is not otherwise precluded from possessing a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license under chapter 62.1-04 and who has possessed for at least one year a valid driver's license or nondriver identification card issued by the department of transportation.


 * This is virtually the same language that was used in Section 2 of Amendment #7 which amended Section 62.1-04-02 (with respect to the concealed carry of a loaded handgun without a permit).


 * An individual who is not otherwise precluded from possessing a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license under chapter 62.1-04 and who has possessed for at least one year a valid driver's license or nondriver identification card issued by the department of transportation may carry a firearm concealed under this chapter.


 * Thus, Section 1 of Amendment #7 contained a provision that allows for the open carry of a loaded handgun by a North Dakota resident without a CCW permit. Note, that the one-year driver’s license or state ID requirement was reduced to 30 days by subsequent legislation.


 * House Bill 1169, without any further amendment was: passed by the House on February 21, 2017; passed by the Senate on March 21, 2017; and signed by the Governor on March 23, 2017. The law took effect on August 1, 2017. LonghornBob (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Handgunlaw.us has decided there is still ambiguity around this issue, and something more would be required for them to change their view. I respect that, as North Dakota governmental officials haven't made clear statements on what the law is on this matter. Therefore, I am going to drop the issue, and agree that no changes should be made at this time. LonghornBob (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Kentucky - Concealed Carry for Non-Residents
The following two sentences in the Kentucky section are internally inconsistent: "It allows residents and non-residents who are 21 years old or older who are otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, to carry concealed firearms (or any other weapon) without a permit. Residents and non-residents under 21 may open carry without a permit, or conceal carry if they are a non-resident and hold a valid out-of-state concealed carry permit."

I believe that in Kentucky, non-residents ARE allowed to conceal carry without a permit. See https://kentuckystatepolice.org/ccdw/ccdw-home/permitless-carry/#1562159961585-fa58bab7-926a which states in part "Any person who is eligible to possess a firearm under the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is permitted to carry a concealed firearm or other concealed deadly weapon in Kentucky, without regard to their citizenship or state of residence." Bartonkj (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
This article likely needs a major rework with today's Supreme Court decision. This decision effectively made Constitutional Carry the law of the land nationwide (allowing for very limited exceptions). 45.50.109.42 (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes! I was just reading all of this after I got off work. This is a huge move back in the right direction for protecting all of our rights as Americans! Nlnorris0029 (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This decision did NOT make constitutional carry the law of the land. Bruen leaves states to require permits to carry concealed handguns, but found good-cause requirements to be unconstitutional. This case makes shall-issue the standard for CCW permits. Kavanaugh's concurrence explained as much. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional Carry anywhere U.S.A
I just wanted to post this note here for those that may not know yet since the page isn't updated. The Supreme Court just over rulled New York and further extended protection of constitutional carry across the country saying it is the American people's right to open or concealed carry in the U.S.A. There are still gonna be certain off limit locations and states are gonna regulate gun laws, but according to the S.C.O.T.U.S law abiding citizens of this country's secondamendment right shall not be infringed. 2603:6080:300:3C00:8873:8BE9:71EE:9989 (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't what the Supreme Court said. The holding made in Bruen says that states which require permits to carry concealed handguns, cannot require an applicant to establish good-cause. This makes shall-issue the standard for states that had may-issue policies. This does NOT make constitutional carry the law of the land. Kavanaugh's concurrence said as much. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Florida - Permitless Carry
Right now, Florida is in the "U.S. states that have a limited form of permitless concealed carry" section of the article instead of the "U.S. jurisdictions that have constitutional carry" section. Yes, Florida bans open carry, but (1) it is not a "limited form of permitless concealed carry", like NM, WA, or IL as it applies generally to law-abiding citizens like the "constitutional carry" states, and (2) there are states in the "constitutional carry" section that have restrictions or ambiguities on open carry (e.g., Missouri allows localities to restrict unlicensed open carry; North Dakota's treatment of open carry is ambiguous and as of April 3, 2023 constitutional carry doesn't apply to non-residents).

Florida either belongs in the "constitutional carry" section, with a note similar to the one ND has "Florida (concealed carry only)" or in its own section separate from NM, WA, and IL. LonghornBob (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)