This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I looked at the citation given for the number of states that Florida (Resident) has reciprocity and I count 35, not 37 as stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.225.146 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
CA is a May-issue state, all counties. San Francisco is NOT a "No-Issue". It is just up to the sheriff dept's discretion. It is, however, very hard to get a permit in SF city/county. Last who got one was a Nobel Laureate.
Open carry is technically Legal in all counties, but gun must be unloaded. Police have right to inspect and check guns in public to verify this.
However, it is Not recommended. You will get hassled , possibly arrested on some other, made-up charge. CA is very gun-unfriendly.
Even in AZ, when open-carry loaded has been legal for years, I've never seen it. Unless maybe in a small town like Douglas.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The definition of CCW is the Crime, and needs be defined versus the Permit: CCP or CWP. The initials: "CCW" are Not interchangeable with the concealed carry permit--they don't even Say this. It is important as it is a legal definition.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
From a recent edit: This county map depicts places with the most permissive and restrictive CCW issuance policies.
As NY is in the same boat with the wide discrepancy in licensing authority, the article, specifically the NY section and the subsequent Gun Laws in New York article, could benefit from such a map as well. Downstate counties, such as Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, as well as NYC and the other surrounding/adjacent counties are very much "no-issue" whereas other counties make it much easier for an average citizen to gain an unrestricted CCW license. -Deathsythe (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
From the article:
"Many states (e.g., ... Minnesota, ...) allow private businesses to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit."
This is not true. One can be asked to leave a posted location, and if one does not, can be cited for trespass, but one's permit is not in jeapardy, in any case.
Minn. Stat. 624.714 Subdiv. 17a.
Marhault (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Corrected that with citation. Abrothman (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article state (in at least 2 locations) that carrying concealed is "generally" prohibited in "churches"? Is this some sort of weird political vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.153.190 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more conventional to use ticks instead of exxes to indicate which category of concealed carry arrangements each state has? 86.129.246.127 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The language in this section indicates that states are required to recognize same sex marriages from other states under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This most certainly is not the case. At the moment, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically abrogates the authority of the full faith and credit clause with respect to the recognition of same sex marriages performed in those jurisdictions where it is permitted. hdonagher (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The article states that "and Rhode Island are considered Restrictive May-Issue states." That is only partially true. Rhode Island has two licensing mechanisms either through the Attorney general or the local chief (local town issuing authority). According to RI statute 11-47-18 the attorney general has may issue authority and currently the office does practice restrictive "may issue" licensing. According to RI statute 11-47-11 the local chief in each town/city is a "shall issue" authority. The license issued via 11-47-11 is valid in the entire state and in also allows the holder to purchase firearms with out waiting 7 days. The license issued via 11-47-18 doesn't defer the 7 day wait but does allow open carry. In practice though only some of the chiefs honor the law (11-47-11) and the rest treat it as may issue or they don't issue at all and refer the applicant to the AG. There have been court cases where chiefs have been sued (Most notably Archer vs. MacGarry and Gillette vs. Esserman) for not issuing and were ordered to do so, though this hasn't deterred the rest of the chiefs that haven't been sued yet to start issuing permits. RI is both a restrictive may issue state and a shall issue (may issue in practice) state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.146.121 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The "in practice" addition to the chart is highly subjective. I don't disagree with it personally but it seems inappropriate to mention except in the text of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.220 (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This section: "Florida (Resident), Michigan and Missouri hold the widest reciprocity of all the states in the U.S. with the number of other states honoring their permits at 37,[47][48] followed by Alaska at 35[49] then Florida (Non-Resident) and Utah at 33;[50][51] Both Michigan and Missouri, however, do not issue permits to non-residents, and some states that honor Utah permits do not extend that to include Utah's non-resident permits." and this chart: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CCW_Reciprocity_(121711).jpg" do not match up, unless I am reading the chart wrong some how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.99.163 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Criminal Protection Zones is not an "Inappropriate POV". It needs to be discussed and represented. By opting out on allowing ccw permit-ed people criminals will still enter in the protected zone the owner creates. See http://www.ohioccwforums.org/ and CPZs. Chaney44145 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Updated my contact info. Anyone willing to discuss this? Chaney44145 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Additional editors welcome!Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In the opener there is in particular "GAO" and "CHL" which are not understandable to me as non american and non-native english speaker. I found CHL later by checking the local variants of names, but it would be easier, if CHL was substituted by CCW-License, or CCWL, which would explain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dispatcher7007 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Excellent article discussing some of the historical changes in gun laws (specifically concealed carry) in California. Itself probably a RS, but also contains sufficient detail about contemporary newspaper articles which could further be used as sources. In particular has historical quotes from contemporary (1800s) newspapers arguing the very same arguments (on both sides) we are hearing today. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/946ba76f#/946ba76f/92 Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The animated map is really interesting-looking, and a reader who sees it is naturally going to be curious about the trends it illustrates: Why did these changes happen? And what explains the regional effects?
But the article says nothing about any of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.105.193 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A lot of the writing in this section seems to misrepresent the articles it cites. For example, the quote from Glenn, David (May 9, 2003). "'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue". The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (35): A18. Retrieved 2007-05-27: "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime." wasn't from the Journal editor's, it was from Mr. Donohue and should at least be attributed as such. However, more importantly it completely miss-represents Donohue's point: that Lott left states with conceal carry laws that didn't support his thesis out of his analysis.
In general, this section seems to present evidence for the efficacy of conceal carry laws. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts about replacing some of the misleading claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1923 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This section also brings in a lot of general statistics about gun use and crime rates, which are un-linked to conceal carry laws (as far as I can tell). I'm a new editor, so I'd appreciate a second opinion about this section before I go in and edit someone else's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1923 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The Shall-Issue section of the article lists Alabama as one of the "undisputed Shall-Issue states", and it's listed as shall-issue in the "Status of concealed carry" table. However I believe that Alabama is a May-Issue state, albeit one in which permits are very often granted to qualified applicants. Here are a few sources: LCPGV: "Alabama is a 'may issue' state, meaning that the sheriff of a county has discretion in determining whether or not to issue a concealed handgun license to an applicant." NRA: "The sheriff of a county may, upon the application of any person residing in that county, issue a qualified or unlimited license to carry a handgun..." (To see this you need to click on "read all" in in the Carrying section.) Another one from the NRA: "Alabama and Connecticut have fairly-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems." Also, the USA Carry reciprocity map lists Alabama as "May Issue to Residents Only". — Mudwater (Talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Whoever is claiming that the 2013 Illinois law is a "hybrid" has clearly NOT read the text of the law.
Illinois has a "shall issue" concealed weapon law. Police agencies may object to the issuing of a permit, but they must be able to articulate a legal reason for the objection. This is no different than the policies of the other "shall issue" states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Some may-issue states require the applicant to show good cause. Others don't. Some, like Alabama, Connecticut, and Delaware, almost always issue permits to qualified applicants. The definition of may-issue isn't requiring applicants to show good cause, and it's not turning down a lot of applicants, it's that the issuing authorities have some degree of discretion -- maybe a lot, or maybe a little, but some degree. With shall-issue, by contrast, there's no discretion. If you're qualified, based on completely objective criteria -- such as not having been convicted of a felony, not having been committed to a mental institution, not being the current subject of a restraining order, and so on, whatever the state's laws specify -- they have to issue the permit. It's true that the Illinois says that the state police "shall issue" the permit -- if there are no objections from any law enforcement agency. If there are, then it's up to the Review Board to decide if the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself, or a threat to public safety, based on a preponderance of the evidence. So at that point it's no longer fact-based, it's opinion-based. It's a judgement call, so some discretion is involved. That makes it may-issue, not shall-issue, by the definition of those terms. As for the point about finding secondary sources that call the new law a may-issue law, that's a good idea. I'll try to look for some when I get a chance. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a disparity over whether a state uses license or permit. Some have argued there is a difference. Indeed, with driving, a permit is granted as a probationary license of sorts. Later, the license is issued. This is the same with guns. In some states, its a license. In others, its a permit. In others, its neither. This article seems to mostly use permit, but always links to license. I think this should probably be changed, and attempted to do so, but its a bit of an undertaking. Plainly, why call it a permit, but link to license, when you could just call it directly a license?--Metallurgist (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
My Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit THCP is a permanent document, renewed every four years like my drivers license through the state Dept of Safety, recognized by Virginia (and other states) as the equivalent of their concealed carry license. There is nothing probationary about the THCP. Temporary drivers permit and permanent drivers license is something else entirely and has nothing to do with the different states using terms carry license or carry permit for the same thing. The distinction you make between carry permit and carry license is due to a mistaken analogy between drivers permit (probationary) and drivers license (permanent).
The distinction between carry permit or carry license often has to do with case law developed on top of state constitution right to keep and bear arms provisions; Tennessee protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms but reserves the legislative power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. There is an absolute right to have a gun at home or business for protection, but carry in public for protection is a privilege, hence the term "permit". What term do the majority of states use for carry documents, permit or license?
(This reminds me of a controversy in the Alan Berg article over "sheriff's denial of a permit application" interpreted as the sheriff claiming he never saw an application, when "denial" of an application is the legal term used for 'not approving' an application.) --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
My off-the-cuff recommendation is that for the particular state sections to use the word that the state uses --- if Tennessee uses "permit" then we use permit. If the state uses "license" then we use license. In general sections we can use the compound "license/permit". That might be the best that we can hope for in this situation where there doesn't appear to be consensus amongst the states......I don't think we'll reach consensus here on "one" term because linguistically there are some nuances to the words that are dispalatable to certain groups. Thoughts?-Justanonymous (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
My wife and I obtained our CCW permits not for the purpose of carrying but for the purpose of additional legal protection. We did so on the advice of my brother-in law who is with the BATF. A CCW permit considerably reduces legal risk from many inadvertent violations. EG A weapon maybe locked in a range bag or lock box in SUV, but a single cartridge not in the weapon or magazine, but inadvertently inside the lock box, back and forth from range is a serious violation with a normal registration permit, but usually no violation if you also have a CCW permit. Even a lock that malfunctions, or is judged insufficient, can be a violation, but not one if possessor has a CCW permit.
I cannot find academic research on this to add it to article, but I am fairly certain this is a significant reason for some small but significant number of CCW holders. Is there a way to include this objectively additional legal protection in the article?108.18.64.121 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I do think this needs addressing. I live in the District of Columbia. I have Virginia concealed carry permit only because it actually gives my some additional legal protection while in the District to Columbia. In DC you have to be traveling to and from "a legitimate gun related activity" (with the probative burden of showing that activity on the gun owner) even to have your gun unloaded and locked in the trunk. Because of my Virginia carry permit, trips to Virginia do not have to be to a Virginia range, gun shop or formal "instruction." So, before my Va carry license, if I was stopped in DC, with my DC registered firearm, I have to prove I am coming or going from a range. Now I do not.If I me somewhere that can be argued to be on the way or returning from Virginia, the "legitimate activity" is simply carrying in Virginia for self protection, which I am allowed. Full protection, no. More legal protection than I had before, yes. This is certainly true in other states where there laws you must be coming from or going to an activity. That activity has got to be a range, or gun repair, or lessons, which maybe difficult to prove, for example at night, when those activities do not occur. Going for a drive to relax, is a legitimate armed activity if you have a CCW. There are also protections against being arrested for a lock or case judged not sufficient, in fact dozens or hypotheticals where with a CCW permit, even if you do not actually carry, give you protection against certain gun laws.108.18.71.239 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the topic is interesting, but the anecdotes above are pure WP:OR need to find a WP:RS discussing this aspect (not blogs, small websites etc).
To the IP, I don't think the virginia permit is actually giving you much protection. Sure you could be on your way back to virginia - but why did you bring the gun into DC to begin with? Unless you can answer that question, they are still going to bust you. Your right to carry in Virginia ends at the DC border (or at least thats what the cop/prosecutor is going to say).
a better argument would be that you were just passing through DC under 18USC926A ("Safe passage") [8] but if you live or work in DC thats probably a non-starter, or if you stopped in DC for any reason other than getting gas.
If you LIVE in DC, then the "virginia carry" argument might work, but only if you didn't stop anywhere in DC while transporting the gun.
In any case, the gun better be unloaded and in your trunk or in a locked case to get protection either under the DC rules, or FOPA.
Here is one source that touches on the transport in DC question, but does not address CCW as any protection http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/20/transporting-gun-through-dc/
Also http://www.nraila.org/images/DOJltrTSA.pdf may be interesting
Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I changed the chart to reflect that Arkansas is an unrestricted state. The fact that the Attorney General issued a non-binding opinion that pertained only the the journey portion of the law does not change what the law actually says - that carrying a firearm is only illegal when it is carried with the intent to commit a crime. I also removed it from the disputed column, since there have been no arrests whatsoever. The only dispute of any sort is the non-binding Attorney General opinion, which has had zero impact on the actions of law enforcement. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I think it's time to call it a duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.102.138 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to discuss adding the U. S. Concealed Carry Association as a resource to this page. It is home of the popular Concealed Carry Magazine. Aside from signing up for membership, you can read free articles with information on many different concealed carry topics, particular to the United States. (See footer at http://www.USConcealedCarry.com.) This site has been around for more than a decade, and provides a real service for concealed carry citizens. Can it be added as an external link? I think it's warranted for this article. --Patm7 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike! Will do.--Patm7 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that. We had a link for almost three years, and someone has taken them down from several pages pertaining to concealed carry. (Not the page owners, members.) Just FYI. Thanks again! --Patm7 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
by Gabrielle Hammond
By carrying a concealed weapon, the holder is exposed to a higher level of potential crime or association. Over 35 states legally have passed what is known as the “Shall-Issue Law.” According to the Buckeye Firearms Association, “States with ‘shall issue’ systems require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and applicants must meet meet certain well defined objective criteria” (Shall). States with these systems will issue a carry concealed weapon permit to a person willing they pass certain state criteria. States that have passed this law between the years of 1977 through 2010 saw a 9% increase of rape, assault, auto theft, and burglary according to a 2012 edition of a paper posted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Concealed). In 2007 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reviewed a list of concealed gun permit holders in Florida and found that 1,400 had pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony, 216 had outstanding warrants, and 128 had active domestic violence injunctions (Concealed). Even if the person carrying the concealed weapon with a permit does not become involved in crime and felonies, a person who is a criminal will account for the civilian who is carrying a weapon. 75% Of felons interviewed by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research reported carrying a gun while committing a crime due to the fact that their victims or surrounding civilians may also be armed (Concealed). Not only do licensed private handgun carriers have the potential to be involved in more crime, they also are at risk for being involved in someone else's potential lethal crime. This endangers the rightful concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holder’s own safety. By carrying a concealed handgun it puts the holder’s safety at risk, as well as the safety and well being of the people around them and even their loved ones.The safety of loved ones is at risk even when the holder is not carrying their weapon. 89% of children that have died by accidental shootings was from a result of playing with their guardian's loaded guns in their absence (Gun). Even if the owner is careful to not let their weapon out of their sight, they are still endangering their family’s lives. By constantly having access to a gun, it subconsciously affects the person. States with the highest level of households owning firearms had 60% higher suicide rates than states that had lower levels of gun ownership in homes (Gun).
Works Cited
"Concealed Guns ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProConorg, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://concealedguns.procon.org/>.
"Gun Safety & Public Health: Policy Recommendations for a More Secure America." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence RSS. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2015. <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/>
"Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No-Issue and Unrestricted States." Shall-Issue, May-Issue, No- Issue and Unrestricted States. Buckeye Firearms Association, 1 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/shall-issue-may-issue-no-issue-and-unrestricted-states>.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.195.66 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Arkansas is an unrestricted concealed carry state. The text of the law is clear, regardless of what the previous attorney general said in 2013. I have edited the article to reflect this fact. Guneditor383 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
5-73-120. Carrying a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.
From http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/arcode/Default.asp
There is nothing at all illegal about carrying a gun if you do not use it for illegal purposes. Dustin McDaniel's non-binding opinion from 2013 is completely irrelevant. Guneditor383 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"The Attorney General over the years has issued hundreds of opinions interpreting the FOIA. These are advisory opinions, not binding on Arkansas courts." There is also the fact that no one has been convicted or even charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit since 2013.Guneditor383 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Every United States jurisdiction has an article pertaining to its gun laws, as well as a summary section in Gun laws in the United States. Most of the specifics of how permits are issued in any given state are best suited to those articles, not this one. I propose that the section be drastically shortened to contain only summary information about each basic permitting policy.
I entirely agree, it would be most useful to include a general overview of the most common types of restrictions, licenses, and considerations without any jurisdictional specifics. If a portal with links to jurisdiction specific pages does not already exist one should be created and linked to in this section. haugen haus (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Hello. About this edit: Looking at the summary of the cited reference, it starts out by saying, "The 2004 report of the National Research Council (NRC) on Firearms and Violence recognized that violent crime was higher in the post-passage period (relative to national crime patterns) for states adopting right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws, but because of model dependence the panel was unable to identify the true causal effect of these laws from the then-existing panel data evidence." I think that's quite clear. The study says that the passage of laws allowing concealed carry is correlated with higher rates of violent crime, *not* that the laws *cause* higher rates violent crime. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Concealed carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed some out of date info. It was subsequently restored [9] I think this type of information may be suitable to the DC article, but in a WP:SUMMARY article like this one, showing all the evolutionary steps seems unlikely to be useful. Thoughts? ResultingConstant (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
In Alabama, local sheriffs have the say on if the permits are issued. If you want to carry a handgun concealed on your person or in your vehicle, a permit is required.
...
The sheriff can turn down an applicant for any reason.
...
The move is not without opposition, including pushback from the powerful Alabama Sheriffs Association. The opposition to permit-less carry centers around sheriffs losing the ability to deny permits to applicants they feel pose a danger to the community.
From: USA Today, Montgomery Advertiser (2017 Nov 04) at: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2017/11/04/alabama-leads-nation-concealed-weapons-permits/825002001/ Phantom in ca (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The third graf has what appears to be POV/counter-POV going on wrt to the effect of CCW on violent crime. One non-peer-reviewed paper is submitted as evidence that CCW increases violent crime, contrary to the bulk of academic research findings over the years. But the biggest problem is that this is mentioned only in the lede, and nowhere within the article. That's not how articles work. The lede is a summary of the article, to varying degrees of detail, but it does not go into matters that are not discussed in the body of the article at all.
I would propose that the third graf be removed in its entirety - or, better perhaps, a section be added covering what the third graf covers, (ideally in greater detail, and maintaining appropriate cited weight), with the lede can pointing out that most of the evidence suggests that CCW reduces violent crime, but that that conclusion is not accepted as a certainty. Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
User Snooganssnoogans removed my summary, while employing an extremely uncivil edit summary. Please discuss article changes here, and be civil. I explained the rationale for the change in structure here. Most research does indeed suggest that concealed carry reduces violent crime, but this is not universally accepted, primarily because all such research works in the realm of correlations. Bottom line: edit summaries are not immune from wikipedia's policies regarding civility. If you have a problem with an edit, discuss it here. I'm entirely open to revising the summary. I would propose this summary, as it avoids any judgement on the research: "Concealed Carry permit holders show significantly fewer convictions for violent crimes than the public at large. Some research suggests that CCW reduces violent crime, with other research contradicting those conclusions." Anastrophe (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Donohue's work is being given far more weight than what the bulk of research suggests. From the same author we have an article, two non-peer-reviewed working papers, and now an article that is a regurgitation of the working papers. His is the only research that suggests causation, which the NBER survey very strongly cautions is virtually impossible to claim (and rightly so). His research has yet to be refereed. So we have six different peer-reviewed studies presented by different organizations, and four citations to non-refereed material from one author. I suggest trimming the mentions of Donohue to the the one 2017 paper, since the 2014 paper was simply non-refereed prelude to the 2017 non-refereed paper. The rest are simply padding, which is clearly WP:UNDUE. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Per user Snooganssnoogans edit, I actually don't have a problem with the working papers being cited, so long as they're cited in context as not-yet-peer-reviewed. I'm not sure whether articles would be a better presentation of his work or not. I'm open to whatever changes we all agree upon as appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to place the citation of the reference to a claim at THE FIRST POINT in the article that it appears. Having it at all points is better. Not having it at the first point is improper. This is about writing the article correctly, not personal and not politics.
Fix it right, or leave it out. Montestruc (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Per PEOPLE v. BRUNER, ILL: 675 N.E.2d 654 (1996), carrying a encased, unloaded handgun, or in this case a unloaded handgun in a purse, is perfectly legal as long as the person has a FOID; in 2000, this started a trend called "fanny pack carry" in Illinois where people carried unloaded guns in fanny packs.
Official state transport guide issued by the Department of Natural Resources states that one my carry a firearm on their person if it meets the following conditions:
The third condition was ruled by the surpreme court to be inapplicable to non-residents with currently valid CCWs, or gun registrations in People v. Holmes (2011). Illinois issues FOIDs by mail to non-residents. The only technicality is that the State Conservation Police may ticket you under the wildlife code for not having a handgun in a case specifically designed for a firearm, but guess what? They make fanny packs, and cell phone case holsters specifically for firearms so it's effectively moot. --Thegunkid (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There are several more cases I can cite but the first is the main citation, and the second is the most applicable. --Thegunkid (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
So where is the citation that Puerto Rico is no-issue? I recall a news segment on CNN a few years ago (before the the court case creating de facto constitutional carry for a while) that showed average Puerto Ricans getting carry permits; From what I understand Puerto Rico is effectively shall-issue, but it's just a very expensive and drawn out paperwork intensive process. --Thegunkid (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed "Arkansas,[disputed]" (only in the case of Arkansas) in the article prose and "Disputed" as a column heading in the Status of concealed carry, by jurisdiction table. That table column has a checkmark for Arkansas, and also for California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. It is not immediately apparent to me what disputed means in this/these contexts. The superscripted assertion re Arkansas probably needs a second look, and clarification about the intended meaning of that term is probably needed in one or both of these cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Could the new Ideal Conceal be in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should be citing a working paper by Lott in the lede. He's neither nor neutral on this issue, so it'd be preferable to wait for a peer-reviewed assessment or secondary coverage of his data on the number of concealed carry licenses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The bold line here summarizes the body of the article, namely the "Effect on violent crime" section[11], yet it keeps getting removed from the lede and replaced with nonsense:
Three editors have edit-warred this line out of the article, and replaced it with individual studies:
An editor keeps trying to add text to the lead that claims that subsequent research to the NAS report reflect the findings of the literature review by Gius. However, the literature review by Gius covers pretty much the exact same period as the NAS report, thus it is not "subsequent research" and certainly does not cover research published in the last decade (which readers might be misled into thinking). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)