Talk:Concealed carry in the United States/Archive 1

message: Could someone list the States which (or, as it would be shorter: which do not) allow Concealed Carry?
If you go down to the bottom of the article, in the links is the one to Packing.org, which is described as having a state-by-state database. It is difficult to give a simple list, as different states have different definitions of concealed carry and some may not include reciprocity. -Fuzzy 01:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which States? 

message: According to http://www.packing.org, there are currently 4 states out of 50 that do not have any provision in their laws for allowing concealed carry of firearms.  Those four are Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois.  
In Nebraska, apparently open carry is legal, although regulated in some localities.
Kansas issues CCW permits to Private Investigators only, and those typically will be honored in other states.  Also, open carry does appear to be legal in Kansas as well.
In Wisconsin, while CCW is not legal, again, open carry is, although there are some restrictions.
In Illinois, open and concealed carry of a LOADED firearm is illegal.  However, there was a change in the law a few years ago, that some people have been taking advantage of.  For further info, you should check out http://www.concealcarry.org.  WARNING!!!  I have been told that most Illinois County prosecutors are looking to get someone for following the advice from that site.  So far I understand they haven't been too successful.
--Al 22:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For enquiring minds 

message: >  A quote at the following site:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall
> in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms
> for self-defense."
> 
> I called the FBI this morning and they claim they made no sush statement.
> Could you please send me you exact reference to this quote?
> 
> Thanks, Lance May
Can anyone investigate this further for us?  --  Zanimum 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is doubtful that a random staff person answering the phone would know the source of this quote off the cuff. As for the quote, it was published in the 1992 Uniform Crime Report issued by the FBI. Have added citation, with a verifiable citation, for substantiating this quote.  Yaf 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If anyone is interested, I just received a CD containing pdf files of the FBI's UCR's from 1980-1994.  The 1992 report is there but it's 426 pages long.  If someone has OCR software I'll be happy to email them a copy so we can do a search.  A cursory review of the "violent crime" section (where I would assume any quote like this would be) showed no mention of gun ownership at all.  Lawyer2b 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Article is unencyclopedic.  It offers arguments for and against ccw, but not enough basic information on these laws.  A summary of laws by state would be a good place to start.  Article contains whole sections without sources.  Pro-ccw arguments are stronger than anti-ccw arguments.--JChap 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would agree with your comments regarding more information about state laws and sources I find your comments upon the strength of arguments to be irrelevant given the situation.  The strength of ones arguments do not reflect on any bias or misconduct, they represent the merits of ones position.--Mutex 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the wrong tag and I will be removing it. That tag is for articles on subjects that simply shouldn't be on wikipedia, this article needs work, but the subject is encyclopedic. The right tags would be the Citations tag, This article needs to be expanded tag, and probably the clean up tag. The tag you put is "This article shouldn't be on wikipedia on this subject at all." PPGMD 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I added the tags that I tought it needed, the intro needs cleanup badly, it's way too long. PPGMD 01:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags added

message: Reciprocity recognition is tough to keep up with.  Packing.org has fallen upon hard times to keep their database updated due to most of the crew moving over to http://www.handgunlaw.us/ due to political infighting. 
handgunlaw.us has a PDF file that lists reciprocity with an update of 9/5/06.
handgunlaw.us has State Laws updated 8/6/06 PDF file contains; specific law cited to allow CCW, deadly force, knife, chemical, and body armor.
*Q&A Missouri information to add for questions about issues in Missouri.
After looking over this article; I've seen a few holes that need patching.  Overall there has been much research completed.  
You might change the NRA training webaddress:
For training and instruction:National Rifle Association
Its easier than sorting past other topics.
Keep safe and keep going.
ArmedCitizen 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Total part 2 

message: I do not believe that this article should refer only to the United States. If I search for concealed weapon I am redirected here, and to my knowledge carrying concealed weapons is a practice in many countries. I am put the US bias tag back up until the article is fixed. Yours, Philip Gronowski Contribs 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article addresses a practice that is only permitted in the United States for ordinary private citizens.  Handguns are entirely banned in the UK, Japan, Australia, and many other countries.  There is thus no CCW equivalent there.  In other countries, such as Mexico, handgun possession is permitted, but only as allowed by law, and the laws generally do not permit concealed carry except for a few well-connected and powerful famous persons.  CCW is a US-centric practice, with a US-only terminology, with no known other country that widely permits concealed carry by arbitrary private citizens. Yes, some countries permit a few well-connected and very wealthy individuals to carry concealed weapons (e.g., Mexico, most of Latin America, parts of Africa, and also Eastern Europe.) But, I don't think the practice of "shall issue" for arbitrary private citizens who are not well-connected and wealthy exists other than in the US.  Hence, I don't think this is a US bias tagging point, but rather a US-centric practice.  Hence, no tag is needed.  If you are aware of a licensing system in any other country that makes handguns available for ordinary private citizens, being of no particular wealth or political-connections, then please add appropriate information.  Otherwise, the globalize tag is not needed. Yaf 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the article is overly US centric. If CCW is only a US phenomenon (which I highly doubt in any case), this article should provide that information, along with verifiable information etc. I tend to agree with posters above that the CCW article should be a general, non specific country-centric one, with links to more country-specific ones. !jim 08:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The section on advocacy for greater restriction of concealed carry is more of a counter argument to concealed carry restriction than an explanation of that movement.  That section and the following one could use some retooling, and references to advocacy groups. Kborer 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the two sections into a section on concealed carry politics.  It could use some more global information, info on concealed carry groups, and more studies specifically aimed at concealed carry laws. Kborer 06:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocacy Sections

message: Regarding Hawaii's issuance or non-issuance of carry permits, the best source might be: http://hawaii.gov/ag/cpja/main/rs/sp_reports_0306/gunreg04.pdf
When reading this, remember that Hawaii is one of only a very few (three?) states that requires a permit to own a firearm.  Most of the discussion of permits in this document are regarding ownership permits, not carry permits.
Regarding carry permits:
Licenses to Carry
Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2004, 263 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses and one (0.4%) was rejected due to disqualifying factors. (Notably, 2004 marks the first year in which the rejection rate for security officer carry permits did not exceed the rejection rate for regular longarm and handgun permit applications from the general public.) Five private citizens in the City & County of Honolulu applied for a concealed carry license and were denied at the discretion of the police chief.
From which I read that 1:, the chiefs have complete discretion regarding to whom they issue, 2: that they are granting carry licenses only to employees of private security firms, 3: applications by private citizens who are not employees of private security firms are uniformly denied, and 4: gun owners know that private citizens who are not employees of private security firms will be denied, and hence very few of them bother to apply.
--jdege 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawaii?

message: The Stopping Power section of the Concealed Carry article seems very subjective. It claims that in the aftermath of the Harold Fish conviction that some people with concealed carry licenses have stopped carrying more powerful handguns such as the 10mm, or are electing to carry full metal jacket bullets rather than the more effective jacketed hollow points. I followed the three references provided. Two were general local news coverage of the trial and sentencing with no mention of caliber or bullet type, and the third was an obscure online forum with only a few people discussing the Fish sentence. Only one person suggested changing from JHP bullets to FMJ to avoid a potential legal problem with a prosecutor or jury, and two other people objected.
From talking to many people with concealed carry licenses and reading numerous opinions, I believe the opinion expressed in the Stopping Power section is very misleading and represents an extreme minority opinion. Most people choose smaller calibers such as 9mm because the pistols are smaller, lighter and easier to carry all the time, while a 10mm can weight 2.5 times as much and is much more difficult to conceal. Most CCW license holders seem to believe that shooting should be the ultimate last resort, and one of the many bad effects will be legal problems, and they will generally occur regardless of caliber choice, bullet type, etc. By far the largest determining factor will be the justification for the shooting, and the rest will be of much less consequence.
I think the entire reference to 10mm and hollow point bullets should be removed, and perhaps replaced with information concerning the tradeoff between effectiveness and the ability to comfortably carry and conceal a weapon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blayne (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping Power 

message: I am not part of the FAWP, nor do I particularly know anything about Concealed weapons; however, I believe that this article could be cleaned up fairly easily. The problems as I see them are:
* POV - this includes many section headers
* lack of Nuetral, 3rd- party sources
* General flow/prose needs to be revised.
That said, I think that there's enough base info that we can hack and slash/reword the POV stuff, and be left with a smaller but perhaps more concise article, from which we can add to. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning this up 

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

message: The tag that says this doesn't discuss the content from a world-view is certainly correct: thus, I suggest we rename it to something like Concealed Carry in the United States or somesuch. Suggestions? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well once the RfC and whatnot wraps up I guess I'll move it. Then I can remove one blasted tag from the article. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Righto. I hadn't even looked at the intro yet. I'll get on it. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest move to new article 

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

message: The use of the term "privilege" violates WP:NPOV.  While some feel that CCW is a privilege to be granted by local government, similar to drivers' license, others feel that concealed carry is a right granted by the US Constitution and, where infringed by local government, is a violation of Federal law.
The introduction, by defining CCW as a privilege, does not acknowledge this and therefore is not as neutral as it could be.
69.181.2.4 18:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the Constitution does not have the word "unalienable rights", that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, while being a great document, is not legally binding.  Furthermore, the only rights that the Declaration addresses as unalienable are "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".  You could argue that liberty covers all rights granted in the constitution, or you could argue that they just cover certain rights.  That being said, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding. Dunstvangeet 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current intro: "Privilege" 

message: I think we need to eliminate some, if not all, of the external links (WP is not a link farm - see: WP:EL). Any suggestions on what needs to go? At the very least it's easy to see that some of the sites listed do not qualify as a reliable source. PeetMoss 01:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start by removing things that obviously don't have anything directly to do with concealed carry. Probably we could go further. Arthur 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be strongly in favor of keeping a small number of external links -- maybe half a dozen or so -- for the most important national groups related to concealed carry in the U.S.  I would also be in favor of including both pro gun rights and pro gun control links.  A lot of people who edit this article have strong opinions on this subject -- I know I do -- but since it's an encyclopedia we should try to have some balance.  There are two articles I know of that are already doing all this quite well in my opinion -- Gun politics in the United States and Gun laws in the United States (by state).  (In the Gun politics article, check out the comments embedded in the External links section asking people not to add more links without agreement on the talk page first.) — Mudwater 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there is a WP guideline or well established precedence for using external links to provide some balance.  After reviewing the links the only one I can prove comes from a reliable source is the "NRA-ILA guide to gun laws" and it also meets the criteria for containing material directly related to this article that cannot be included within the article. Because the burden of proving an external link meets WP guidelines falls on the person placing the link I am going to delete the rest of the links. PeetMoss 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I mentioned trying to be balanced, I was thinking of the standard Wikipedia guidelines about an article having a neutral point of view.  And I still think it might make sense to have more than one external link for this article.  On the other hand, what you're saying makes sense too.  The NRA-ILA link is a reliable source, and contains valuable reference material directly related to the article.  I want to think about this some more, and I'd be interested in what other editors have to say, but my initial reaction is that having just that one link seems reasonable. — Mudwater 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Balance is an excellent goal, but all sources must always pass WP:RS and links must pass WP:EL, which means they have to add something useful to the exact topic of the article. Most of the pro gun-control links had nothing to do with concealed carry and simply don't belong on this article. Arthur 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminating External Links 

message: Regarding the statement "most states allow carry in vehicles without restrictions"; I am not aware of any state that permits the carry of firearms in vehicles without restrictions.  What states permit the unrestricted carrying of firearms within the passenger compartment?  (By a 1986 Federal law, handgun carry in a trunk, with the firearm unloaded, is protected as long as one is traveling from and to a part of the US that allows such firearms.  But, this is not the same as carrying open or concealed within a passenger compartment of a vehicle.)  Yaf (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Wild claims" was simply the title of the previous section on the talk page (see above); it had no bearing on this section of the talk page entitled "Carry in vehicles";  this "Wild claims" errata is just a quirk of the format used by Wikipedia software :-)  No intent was implied or intended that would imply your edit description was considered "Wild claims" :-)  I was just curious if any states actually permitted unrestricted carry within passenger compartments; it might be a good state to consider retiring in someday :-)  As I understand it, the requirement for Florida is that the loaded weapon must be "securely encased", which a holster accomplishes, but only if snapped. An unsnapped holster does not meet this requirement. It is worth noting that this does not mean the firearm must be "encased securely".  Georgia's laws are slightly different than Florida; formerly, Georgia required a holster other than an IWB (inside waistband) for legality, as the law required a holster resting on one's leg. but the legal wording was changed a few years back, and I believe that the commonly-accepted interpretation now is that an IWB holster is now considered legal for carry in Georgia.  Thanks. Yaf (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "What states permit the unrestricted carrying of firearms within the passenger compartment?" -- Missouri, for one. (See 571.030 RSMo, subsection 3.)  I would imagine Vermont and Alaska allow it as well.69.179.181.16 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Carry in vehicles

message: "However, many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, and the argument could be made that, if a permit holder is looking for and sees a sign, and studies it long enough to determine it does not meet specifications and is therefore nonbinding, he nevertheless cannot fail to infer its intent, and thus, due to a court decision, such a sign could be held to be as binding as an oral statement that concealed weapons are not welcome, which does not have to be a recitation of the exact text of the notice."
I personally know of a few business owners who have intentionally posted non-compliant signs knowing that they have no legal force, because it shut up a few anti-gun loons who'd been complaining about the new law, and would have no effect on the permit holders who they continued to welcome into the establishment.
I have, though, nothing to cite regarding this point.  As I understand Wikipedia policy, personal conversations aren't citeable.
HerbM (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Fireproeng (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-compliant signs 

message: Yaf, standard WP protocol is to not revert source tags without either providing the reference or discussing. Can you tell me the rationale for removing the tags as you did here?  Thanks. Fireproeng (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Since the cite was already in the article relative to Florida law, which upon re-writing to provide an example that it was true in Florida, this fact was thus already cited.  For clarity, though, I have duplicated this cite for the paragraph in question.  Hope this makes it more clear.  Thanks. Yaf (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, thanks. Fireproeng (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Why Vermont has remained (according to the history .gif map--nice job btw whoever's work that was), very professional--an unrestricted state. I've done some cursory research but found nothing definitive.
HerbM (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm Curious