Talk:Open carry in the United States

message: It is also called "open display." was deleted for lack of cite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.19.35 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Someone put this in the article, when it obviously belongs on the talk page. Godfrey Daniel (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds rather relevant to me, at least some of it. I don't suppose the useful parts could be worked into the article? Invmog (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nebraska

message: Map is wrong. Washington has full state pre-emption on all firearms laws. RCW 9.41.270
65.101.132.202 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maps is very wrong. Added the Template:Contradict-other pointing to Concealed carry in the United States. I believe that  is the correct map (as of 2006.) Matthew Glennon (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The map on this page is in need of an update, but it does not contradict the map on the Concealed carry in the United States page because that map deals exclusively with the issuance of permits for the carrying of concealed weapons.  Laws regarding open carry are different.  For example, Texas is a shall-issue state meaning they will issue a permit to anyone who meets the basic qualifications, however, the wearing of weapons in the open is prohibited even in the case of a person with a valid concealed carry permit.  In Arizona, by contrast, any legally owned firearm may be carried in the open by almost anyone with very few restrictions, but concealed carry requires a permit.  Alaska allows any carry, either open or concealed, by any legal gun owner with or without a permit.  Therefore, I would suggest that, while the open carry map may need work, the contradiction template is not warranted at this time as the two maps are about different issues. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: 'Goldstar' is the definition of the site the map was taken from; I think a GPL-licensed map based on the blank templates and a new definition would be better to avoid both POVism and plagiarism. My first thought was 'unrestricted', but then again it's not really unrestricted since minors and felons still can't carry, so it'd be quite a misnomer. Any suggestions? --Joffeloff 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That pic should definitely be chnaged out.  There's this one, but I'm unclear as to if it strictly pertains to the topic in question.  It comes from the CCW article, but may not necessarily pertain directly to concealed carry.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a strong supporter of concealed and open carry, but yeah, that map and terminology really ought to be changed for WP. I understand it came from another site, but... still. I vote "unrestricted" with the fairly common sense assumption that minors and felons need not apply. Exigence 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map and goldstar terminology have been replaced. Arthur 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of discussion (practical law vs technical law) should be held in the Open Carry Forums, though I am ecstatic to  see that the map was finally changed for the wiki. I say practical because many states will use "Disturbing the peace" as a catch-all law but THIS is not the place for that discussion, our objective here should be to make this article.
1.) More neutral, which I don't see as being possible because te NPOV tag was removed for awhile but most of the wiki-mods are anti-gun liberals so they will keep dogging this entry with NPOV.
2.) We need a world VIEW, so please someone with some knowledge, get us some data on open carry practices and laws in other countries  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.93.2 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Goldstar'

message: Are there any maps which show open carry permissive from around the world? If so I would gladly post it  . This article has an excellent beginning for US Open Carry law, someone shoudl really add something for Europe.
:That's very easy, AFAIK it's forbidden everywhere but Switzerland (in which case the ammunition is four kilometres away from the weapon) and on Svalbard, where it's actually mandated. --Joffeloff 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends there are a number of place were open carry of long guns is allowed in unincorperated areas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.128.64 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: World map

message: I redid the whole section on state constitutions.  It originally made the unsourced statement that twelve states constitutions contained protections for the open carry of firearms without quoting or citing any of them.  In fact there are no state constitutions that contain the phrase "open carry," nor "carrying arms in the open," nor any remotely similar construction (yes, I did check all fifty of them.)  It could be argued that open carry is implied in some constitutions, and it may be, but that is a subjective interpretation so I removed it and replaced it with purely factual data complete with appropriate footnotes and references.  There's still room for imrpovement, but I think it's a start.--OlenWhitaker (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: State constitutions section

message: Maybe we should have a picture of someone open carrying in public, as an example that this does occur in some places. 24.179.34.94 (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not sure what you are refering to, I do not see any pictures that have such a caption. However, "Hi Power" in reference to guns may be referring to a specific model of gun Browning_Hi-Power rather than describing the guns actual "power". (The Hi Power was so named due to its relatively  higher capacity at the time. No clue on why they spelled it that way). Gaijin42 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Coming from a country where virtually no one is allowed to carry a gun (except the police and probably some hunters), I've always wondered what the fuss is all about - I mean what is the rationale for/against open/concealed carry? I mean: Why does it matter, what's the rationale? --Soylentyellow (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I cannot see Soylentyellow's question being answered here: Why does it matter whether a handgun is carried visibly to other people or not? There are some US states where one may get a concealed carry permission but is never allowed to carry it unconcealed. But what makes carrying a gun visibly more "dangerous" than carrying it invisibly? Do the legislature argue that an unconcealed gun may scare other people or something like that? As I am from Germany, where carrying and even owning of guns is strictly regulated, this legal field is something like "terra incognita" to me, so please apologize if this appears to be a stupid question.--SiriusB (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Shonus accurately covers the modern rationales used by people invested in the issue, but in therms of where the laws _come from_, the answer is a bit different.  Basically, it's a difference in cultural norms.  Every part of the US before the 20th century has a tradition of citizens carrying arms for self defense, but that tradition was practiced differently in different places.  In some places a "good citizen" was expected to carry discreetly so as to avoid appearing aggressive, while only a blustering bully would carry openly.  In other places, a "good citizen" carried openly because he had nothing to hide, while only a criminal would carry a "hidden gun" (a scare phrase our gun control groups are trying to make stick right now, actually).  Those assumptions tended to influence regions' 20th century gun laws, the relics of which we're still dealing with today.  Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Alabama, for instance, concealed carry was outlawed in the 19th century. The act doing so made reference to "the evil practice of bearing arms secretly". An 1840 Alabama Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of the act, with the court stating a clear preference for open carry. "Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence[sic]." Of course, it is foolish to believe that a concealed firearm cannot be used for self defense, but it is a clear sign of the beliefs of that time period. 75.139.33.114 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I teach permit to carry here in Minnesota.  I address this in my class, as both open and concealed are legal here.  If you carry openly, you can act as a deterrent (of course, it also makes anti-gun people ver nervous, and some jerks just want to do that), and there is a measurable benefit there.  However, I carry concealed, and I recommend that my students do the same, for a very simple reason.  If nobody knows I have my gun, then I am not target #1 if someone is NOT deterred.  Think about it.  If you're standing somewhere carrying openly, and someone is going to start something anyway, then the first thing they are going to do is take downthe known threat, and they have the element of surprise on their side.  Also (and this happened to a buddy of mine), if you carry concealed you have a CHOICE as to whether or not you respond to a situation.  He out when a situation went down, another bystander looked at him, saw his weapon on his hip (carried openly) when they hit the floor, and shouted out "Hey!  You have a gun!  Do something!"  Rapier (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Don't ever forget the 'jerks' that are willing to take the risk of being shot first, so that you can take the time to decide if you really want to become involved. As for the 'element of surprise', criminals will always have that because they are the ones acting offensively. What you are referring to is a Counterattack. 75.139.33.114 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Soylent, briefly, most people in my experience prefer to carry concealed because they don't want to draw attention to their guns, have problems with anti-gunners or uninformed police, or color their interactions with people who are (rightly or wrongly) intimidated by a holstered gun.  Every time I've personally heard of a person carrying openly, it's been to make a political statement about our right to carry; because local laws restrict concealed carry in some way; or because carrying concealed would be uncomfortable or impractical.  Some states, like California, severely restrict concealed carry, leaving open carry the only option.  Other states require a permit to carry concealed but not to carry openly; a person may open carry to avoid the hassle and expense.  And concealing a full-sized handgun requires a cover garment (like an overshirt or jacket) to cover the gun and holster; in many parts of the US, that would be stiflingly hot.  In short, the overall preference is for concealed carry, but there are cases in which open carry is more practical.  Personally, I'm not comfortable carrying openly, but have no problem with those who do.  Elmo iscariot (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does it matter whether open or concealed carry? Rationale?

message: I've added some details to the new stub, with references. Feel free to add to this.  I suppose that as these sections grow, they should be better organized by region (Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc.) Alpha sort by country name?  Help!   Trasel (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections: Open carry around the world

message: This section looks good, but I have a neutrality concern - specifically, since we have quotes from the individuals involved in these incidents, can we put in reactions from others, including those who opposed their actions? Regardless of our own POVs, it's important to provide a balanced account. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any on-topic quote is relevant to this wiki article, as long as it is properly referenced. Go for it! All sides should be represented. Trasel (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Now to dig through the media fluff to find actual good information. :) Vicenarian (Said · Done) 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Open carry revival in the early 21st century

message: I'd opt for putting that back in, the OpenCarry.org forum really is the main go-to site for people who open carry, and moreover, the main page has links to updated maps of where open carry (and other related gun carry, such as open carry in vehicles and at colleges) are legal. 
Just my two cents. 
ElizaBarrington (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a map could be used from there with permission. Invmog (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Good idea, so what you're saying is that we should reinsert the link or maybe even make brief mention of the website and its maps on the actual article itself. Sounds good to me. Invmog (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they maintain an up to date map, then why re-invent the wheel??? It is a lot easier for us to keep a link updated than it would be to make regular updates to a locally-hosted map. Trasel (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree, Trasel, so let's just keep the link (a.k.a. restore the link.) Invmog (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Cool; thanks. Invmog (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of OpenCarry.org link

message: Hi everyone.  I agree with the comment from 2/2008 above that this article makes more sense as a US-focused article, as a parallel article to concealed carry.  I didn't see any objection to focusing it on the U.S.  Shall I proceed?  --PFS (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at this too, and the term "Open Carry" seems to be exclusively used in context of the United States.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, I checked about a dozen of the articles used as citations for countries other than the United States, and I could not find one that used the term "open carry", or "carrying weapons".  In general the cited articles use terms like "the gun issue", "civilian gun arsenal", "availability and use of small arms", "illegal firearms" and the like.  To characterize those citations in the "Open Carry around the world" section as being articles discussing "Open Carry" is plainly improper synthesis.  Indeed, I question whether the title of the section in founded on reliable sourcing, or if the entire section is synthesized original research.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay.  I will focus the article on open carry in the U.S.  This article has a rating of START, which means it could use more organization.  I was just looking at Concealed Carry in the U.S., and I see a suggestion for an organizing structure. I suggest adopting the same logical structure for this article. --PFS (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a chance to do more checking the seventy four references purporting to be documenting "open carry around the world" section.  After checking about twenty, I have yet to find even a single reference that uses the term "open carry" in description of global gun use. And most, while describing gun use, don't distinguish between concealed carry and open carry.  This entire section seem hopeless riddled with improper synthesis.  Probably the prudent thing is to temporarily move that section off the article main space and put it here to the talk page so that we can work on verifying the references.  After it gets fixed we can move it back.  There are far too many failed verifications among those 78 citations.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be a reasonable idea. I agree with others who think this article would work best as "Open Carry in the United States," particularly given that "Open Carry" seems to be an issue in the U.S. and nowhere else (as a legal or policy matter, at least). I have checked several of the sources for the international content in this article and several sources seem to be randomly selected. I could not find any that spoke of how the law in those countries regulates the open carrying of firearms in public, which really is the most relevant issue here. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, I have moved the "Open carry around the world" section to this talk page for discussing, and fixing, and after fixing we can then move it back to the article. See below.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I affirm this change.  Better to fix it here in the talk section and then move it back once the referencing is done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Carry in context outside the United States

message: Now that there is a better photo, I recommend that the discordant "snowball" photo be deleted.  BobbieCharlton (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New Photo

message: As discussed above, this Open Carry Around the World.  Probably the first thing to do is to methodically go through those sources and see if any can be found that actually mention "open carry" in context of the world other than the USA.  I will give that a start, and welcome collaboration.  And, for what it is worth, the metawiki software gave the pink spam block for the five or six pointers to examiner.com, as being blacklisted. So, as a workaround, I munged those URLs.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at these references, and at the references in the main article, I am having trouble finding the basic source, that being any neutral third party source discussing the origin of the term "open carry".  There are a number of number of newspaper article about open carry demonstrations, but is there an academic journal or a history book or a social science paper or something that simply describes the history of Open Carry from a neutral and non-political perspective?  Help please.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a Google Archive news search, it appears that the term "open carry" did not enter the lexicon until September 1987.  Can anyone else find the term "open carry" used with the meaning described in this article prior to the Florida 'open carry' gun law that went into effect Oct 1, 1987?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about this the Open Carry Around the World passage

message: Doing some foundation work, I am trying to pull together a bibliography.  Looking for books that are describing "open carry" as a social phenomena in an academic neutral viewpoint, and I am having trouble finding any.  (As opposed to news reports of open carry events, or political advocacy writings.)  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary source bibliography?

message: The link to the www.saf.com website (presently shows as footnote 24) ostensibly points to a 1950 University of Pennsylvania Law Review article written by someone F.J.K..  It seems necessary to identify the person writing this article, anyone know who F.J.K. might be?  Also, while the SAF provides a service with these "reprints" of theirs, they do not authorize their use for "citational use" and we should probably be respecting their explicit limitation.  Can someone check this source?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bumping this, who is the anonymous author "F.J.K." of the paper?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is F.J.K.

message: If we are linking to OpenCarry.org then we should also link to USACarry.com which is a similar site and has just as much information. Kahman (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the policy here external links are not advised just because a site is similar or has just as much information.  Also, when I checked the forum at USACarry.org I see that you are a member of that group.  Checking your contribution history at Wikipedia, I see that you have a history of inserting links in Wikipedia to your group spanning several years.  This may be viewed as WP:WPSPAM.  Please review and follow the conflict of interest guidelines at Wikipedia.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Still, as near as I can tell USACarry.com is owned by a corporation called i156 Inc. which seems also to be the parent corporation of a manufacture of handgun holsters.  I can understand from a marketing perspective why a corporation like that would like to encourage as many people as possible to carry handguns, it would be good for holster sales.  That said, I don't think it would be a good idea to help with the promotion of sales of their holsters by including a link to their website from Wikipedia.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of USACarry.com link

message: In the last few weeks I have been reading every third party reliable source I could find on this topic, as we should per WP:V.  What is apparent from the entirety of this body of sourcing is that when this sourcing uses the term "open carry" they are speaking of the "open carry movement" with the earliest mention occurring in Florida in late 1987 surrounding open carry demonstrations related to some state legislation at that time.  What is missing (that I can see) in the third party reliable sourcing is any mention of the history of open carry going back to Africa, or back to the Wild West period.  Yet, this article makes the case that "open carry" is implicitly linked to a history in ancient Africa and the Wild West.  That seems to me as WP:SYN, seemingly intended as improper advocacy to give the Open Carry movement legitimacy as having a longer history.  Unless someone can find third party reliable sourcing that dates the open carry history back beyond the origins seen in 1987, I suggest that we delete the Open Carry History section per WP:SYN.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SYN and "Open Carry in History" section

message: It is pretty hilariously Ironic that SaltyBoater, who is in an editing collusion with ForwardThinkers (see their respective editing histories and Talk page chatter)  on this and other RKBA articles now claims to be just  "tweaking NPOV".  Do the other editors realize that ForwardThinkers is the NEW EDITING NAME of a full-time paid lobbyist for  The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV)--a gun control group? In fact, "CSGV "was his old editing sign-in name.  Talk about conflict of interest! ForwardThinkers has been repeatedly warned in the past not to make substantive edits to gun rights pages by other editors and admins, yet he persists in doing so.   This sort of meddling by paid lobbyists and their cronies is POISONING wikipedia, and compromising its neutrality.  Something is rotten in Denmark, and some Admins should be told about it.173.84.198.107 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One admin here tells you that making unsubstantiated claims like this violates WP:BLP and WP:NPA. If you have any substantial material, the correct place to bring it is WP:COIN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming to my defense. I strongly object to these false accusations and attacks on my character.  Also, I will come to the defense of ForwardThinkers now, pointing out that the biggest requirement of WP:COI is full disclosure, and the disclosure of ForwardThinkers has been full and transparent.  The second requirement of WP:COI is strict adherence to WP:Policy and this too has been practiced meticulously by ForwardThinkers.  In contrast to the anonymous unfounded attacks made by AnonIP.  Indeed the personal and political interests of this AnonIP are self evident and appear directly in conflict with the goal of writing an Encyclopedia.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I commented on this over on Concealed Carry - seems like an unwarranted attack to me.  The rules of Wiki take care of these kinds of problems.  Let's get to improving the text. There is much work to be done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Conflict of Interest in Editing

message: The article seems focused exclusively on firearms. Is that what the laws are about? What if I carry a claymore on my back, or a cutlass on my belt?
Snow (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry Eliza - should've been a bit more clear - when I said "claymore on my back", I meant Claymore, not Claymore. Hope that clears it up. --Snow (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other weapons

message: Ok, I was trying to edit Concealed carry and noticed that about 1/4 of the text was about open cary of weapons in Canada. First I tried to comment on it in the talk page, except there isn't any, it's redirecting to concealed carry in the US (like if the rest of the world didn't have any)
Next I wanted to add a Template:Off-topic to it mentioning that it had info about open carry was included in the concealed carry article, except there isn't an open carry article as it's redirecting to open carry in the US...
Hello guys, I have nothing against the US, but it isn't the whole world, and from my point of view anyway you can only talk about the US part of general topics like open/hidden carrying of guns as a sub-topic of the rest of the world instead of the rest of the world being a sub-topic of the US...
Anyway, without an open carrying article to reefer to I don't really know how to deal with the article in question because I don't want to edit it myself for various reasons...
:Category:Gun_politics_by_country might be informative when it comes to open/hidden carrying by the way...
Anyway, with the topics in question generally being rather hotly debated I'm going to just leave this all up to you guys to clean up in all of this...
Myself I have a paper I have to write for the uni in the next few days...
Good luck all :-)
Luredreier (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the talk page linking redirect.  I haven't figured out what happened, but i'll do my best to sort it out. Sperril (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Help?

message: I wanted to add something to the Open Carry Demonstrations/Events section, but really wasn't sure how to word it to fit.
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/ - After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners
"The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention."
* http://www.examiner (dot) com/family-issues-in-national/licensed-citizen-carrying-open-gun-is-hassled-by-police - 
Licensed citizen carrying open gun is hassled by police
"A few weeks ago and 25 year old man carrying a gun on his hip for self-defense was confronted by a police officer in Philadelphia and covered him with his own drawn gun.
Mark Fiorino, age 25, tried to explain to the officer that he had a license to carry the gun and could show him the permit.
The officer was taking no chances and told him it was illegal to carry the gun and that he didn’t know who he was. 
The conversation continued and was being recorded. This is argument in defense of people being able to video and record policemen and is considered the only way to fight back against police abuse of power.
Mr. Fiorino was in an AutoZone store when he heard the policemen speak to him and when he turned around, the policeman was holding a gun on him."
* http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Has-Exposed-Gun-in-Phila-Charged-121932474.html - Man Has Exposed Gun in Phila., Charged
"“Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?” Dougherty asks, according to the YouTube clip. Fiorino responds, “Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms. ... It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive.”
After some profanity-laced back-and-forth, other officers responded to Dougherty's calls for backup. Fiorino was forced to the ground as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to carry his gun openly. He had his permit on him, along with his driver's license."
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA - Video of Incident (Youtube)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathsythe (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue in Philadelphia should be noted - Mark Fiorino 

message: I would update Oklahoma's status, but it also involves changing the art. 98.160.107.10 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing oklahoma 

message: In the current version of the article, the Notes column for Illinois says, "The legality of open carry in Illinois is currently unclear...." and then goes on to talk about People v. Aguilar, citing a Daily Caller article.  That's incorrect, open carry is generally prohibited in Illinois.  I'm going to change the article, and add a reference or two.  As to Aguilar, it struck down an Illinois law that prohibited both concealed and open carry.  But now that concealed carry is allowed in Illinois, Aguilar does not affect open carry, which is still illegal.  Of course if a reliable third-party reference can be provided that states otherwise, I'd be open to further discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois 

message: It has nary a one, unless I'm missing something. Given that some of the definitions assume specific uses of more general terms, we really need to sources these. I don't think these are universally understood definitions that would be commoonplace enough to avoid references.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology section needs citation 

message: I'm confused but from Australia so please bear with my maybe very simple question. The amendment refers to the 'right to bear arms' but everything seems to be linked to firearms only.  I ask this question because when I was in Central America a few years ago every man in rural areas carried their daily toll of trade; a machete. So the question I ask is, in the open carry states in the USA, does the 'arms' I carry have to be a firearm or can it be other weapons such as a machete; or even weapons used at the time of the amendment such as swords or bayonets. ```` user:johnscotaus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnscotaus (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: confused

message: I removed the Arkansas disputed tag because the dispute seems to be based solely on a non-binding opinion about a very narrow area of the law by the Attorney General. There have been numerous open carry events in Arkansas that have received media coverage with no arrests whatsoever.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.102.138 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkansas Disputed 

message: You need to add info re. OC in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Island, like Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States. All of those are NO Open Carry acc to their Wiki gun law entries (Guam is UNK re. OC), and thus ripe targets for future federal lawsuits.
Phantom in ca (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  OC in NON-State Areas of USA 

message: Where did the terms in the "Categories of law" come from? Lightbreather (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories of law 

message: The "Demonstrations and events" section seems overdone. In fact, it seems like a violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and an inappropriate use of WP:EMBED. Of course there are demonstrations by open carry activists. There are also demonstrations by those opposed to open carry. I suggest turning this section into prose, mentioning a few notable events for and against open carry. Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstrations and events 

message: Why is New Hampshire listed as anomalous? As far as I know, it is a fully open carry state, no license except in vehicles. A number of other states could use explanations as well because they are probably open carry, but its vague. Like Nebraska appears to be fully open carry, but its constitutional not a clear statute.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed Objective Reason (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Hampshire and other states 

message: We should make a table on the statewide legality of long gun open carry as well. 173.169.17.102 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long gun open carry. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822175508/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hctDBUKMR4V-lGBrEQcYNO0ooBQAD9A4TG402 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hctDBUKMR4V-lGBrEQcYNO0ooBQAD9A4TG402
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160207213442/http://www.opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/ to http://www.opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have updated Pennsylvania to Licensed. Open carry is legal without a license statewide, except in Philadelphia and in a vehicle, where a License to Carry Firearms is required. In reality the state should be somewhere between Permissive and Licensed, but definitely not Anomalous. I hope to update the map soon unless anyone else gets to is first. Zeus t | u | c 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anomalous is more appropriate. Anomalous means it varies based on where you are, and it does (i.e. in Philly or outside Philly). Terrorist96 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania - Anomalous -> Licensed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Open 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218231659/http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_2157ecea-907b-5e29-8c80-3a6538572eb5.html to http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_2157ecea-907b-5e29-8c80-3a6538572eb5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040540/http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html to http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822130558/http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/25952317/right-to-protest-with-a-gun.htm to http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/25952317/right-to-protest-with-a-gun.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040540/http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html to http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html
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) 03:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some states issue permits, some issue licenses. We should not replace all instances of "license" with "permit" when that state issues licenses.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.. There appears to be some ambiguity in WP about this which ought to be resolved. The Firearms license article, as I read it, seems to imply that the two terms are equivalent. Googling around, I found some web pages offering info about differences between them (e.g., , , ), but none of these would be considered WP:Reliable Sources. This Google Books search turned up some sources with more info, but I didn't see anything there which I would be comfortable in citing in support of an assertion about the difference between licenses and permits in laws regulating firearms in the U.S. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends I've actually compiled a list of all the state CCW's, and out of them 27 issue a Permit, 23 issue a License, 8 of them state weapon, 6 state firearms, 34 state concealed, 13 state handgun, 10 state pistol; And finally Washington DC, it's Concealed Carry Pistol License, Guam, it's simply an endorsement on their FOID, Puerto Rico it's Permiso de Portación', or in English "Permit to Carry"; Northern Marianas doesn't issue anything other than a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card since they banned handguns and they refuse to enact any new laws literally out of spite; Meanwhile Under the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands, they issue a 24 Hour Concealed Handgun License, and in American Samoa you simply have to have a License to Possess, which is required to even own a firearm there.
--Thegunkid (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for compiling that.  I did not mean to say that there necessarily was a difference between a license and a permit, but to merely follow the correct nomenclature for each state.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permit v License 

message: So apparently reading into Pennsylvania law, the definition of a firearm under state law only applies to short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, or handguns with barrel lengths less than 15 inches, or anything less than 26 inches overall; and this doesn't seem to be a mistake or oversight as the older definition of a firearm circa 1978 was 12 inches for handguns, 24 inches for shotguns, and 15 inches for rifles; which is interesting considering the fact that short barrel rifles were never restricted under Pennsylvania law, only shotguns had a requirement of 18 inches under the Prohibited Offensive Weapons statute. (Pennsylvania State police ruled Mossberg shockwaves and other firearms of the like to be "pistols" for the purposes of state law)
That said, per Commonwealth v. Todd, 384 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 1978), a handgun with a barrel length of over 15 inches would be legal to carry in Philly without a license. --Thegunkid (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd quirk about Pennsylvania Law 

message: Does Oklahoma's Constitutional Carry law apply to Open Carry as well as Concealed Carry? Is it full Constitutional Carry on Residents Only Permitless Carry? 173.168.246.144 (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it applies to open carry. It applies to residents and nonresidents.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oklahoma's new Constitutional Carry Law(Effective on Nov 1, 2019) 

message: I encourage the map maker/s to put in parentheses after the description of each color the total number of states having that color (e.g., "Non-permissive (4 + D.C.)"). Phantom in ca (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrorist96 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  OC map: show totals for each "color" 

message: The article says that in some states a loaded weapon is defined as "When a person has both the firearm and its ammunition in his or her possession (or readily accessible, in some instances), without regard as to whether a round is in the chamber or a magazine with ammunition is inserted into the firearm".  Can anyone provide a reliable reference for at least one state where that's the definition?  If not let's remove it from the article.  — Mudwater (Talk) 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a loaded weapon 

message: This section states: "The most obvious predicate for a federal right to do so would arise under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." However, rights are not predicated by the constitution. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right as preexisting. The constitution doesn't grant any rights to anybody. Rather, it limits and defines government powers. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the government is granted no power whatsoever to infringe on this preexisting right. Therefore, the quoted material makes no sense. MainePatriot (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Implications 

message: Now that Nebraska has enacted local preemption of firearms laws (LB 77), will open carry soon become unrestricted in Omaha?
Pine (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer from the legislature is explicitly yes. 105.66.5.15 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omaha, Nebraska after LB 77 

message: SB0001 was just signed into law, among other things it requires a person carrying under the authority of a carry permit to keep their gun concealed at all times. Law becomes effective October 1st, 2023. 105.66.5.15 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Carry Banned in Maryland 

message: It appears NY's color on the map contradicts its entry on the table, does anybody agree? Thornfield Hall (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY