12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws

[terryg]

Small sidetrack: I use "assault rifle" as a real term to be applied to an actual class of select-fire weapons such as the M-16/M-4 and AK families of rifles. The word assault in that context is to "storm an enemy position". The term the Brady's and others use is "assault weapon" which is silly on the face of it because they mean assault as a legal term of the crime of attacking a person...not only is it wrong in that regard because ANY weapon can be used to assault someone, but is also wrong because almost none of the rifles they apply the term to have select fire, which is the defining characteristic of an assault rifle. Sorry, but a pet peeve of mine.

Agreed! But that is exactly the point. Because they got away with defining the term, they won the semantics and therefore won the initial battle.

[magillapd]

Cars kill more people then guns do. Doctors most likley kill more people then guns do.

Yes I know guns don't kill, people kill.

Our society is based on the FACT that people are innocent until proven guilty. IF a person breaks the law by shooting someone when not leaglly justified, then he/she needs to be held accountable.

DWI drivers kills so many more people then do gunmen. Keep criminals locked up. Repeat offenders don't get out early.

I can tell you this, if we lived in a perfect society where crime was 100% gone...I'd still carry a gun because I can.

[anygunanywhere]

Mandatory training to carry a firearm in a permitless system is a prime example of common sense gun laws that we can do without. The second amendment says nothing about mandatory training.

If mandatory training is required to exercise a fundamental right then everyone should be required to take a Dale Carnegie course before speaking in public.

Rights do not require any prerequisite. They are given to us by God our creator.

Anygunanywhere

[Purplehood]

The permit system should be kept and licenses issued for reciprocity reasons.

The 2nd Amendment does not demand reciprocity.

/sorry... had to vent.

[Dragonfighter]

In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.

absolutely agree! i can see the argument for shorter class times, and lower fees, but something should still be done. no, the BG's dont, but if i have to fire on someone who has a weapon i would hate for it to be someone trying to do the right thing and just messed up because they did not know better. a little schooling not only helps them, but us.

And so the person who is not mobile enough to stand at the firing line or strong enough to fire 50 rounds at a target are precluded from self protection. I know a gentleman who still gets out but is too arthritic to rack a slide or handle individual rounds, but he can point and pull the trigger. His family or friends ensures he is heeled with a ready weapon. But he is incapable of sitting still long enough for the class or able to sustain the rigors of CHL range qualifications. I guess his carrying is "unacceptable".

[RoyGBiv]

The permit system should be kept and licenses issued for reciprocity reasons.

The 2nd Amendment does not demand reciprocity.

/sorry... had to vent.

I agree... I was working through the logic of how we'd get from here to there... An interim step would likely be to go to Constitutional Carry by state. All you need is a DL issued by your state. So if you wanted to carry in other states...

I need to check... of the states that have Const. Carry, how many extend it to non-residents visiting the state?

[nakedbike]

The permit system should be kept and licenses issued for reciprocity reasons.

The 2nd Amendment does not demand reciprocity.

/sorry... had to vent.

I agree... I was working through the logic of how we'd get from here to there... An interim step would likely be to go to Constitutional Carry by state. All you need is a DL issued by your state. So if you wanted to carry in other states...

I need to check... of the states that have Const. Carry, how many extend it to non-residents visiting the state?

I was under the impression that if you are in that state you are under that state's laws and therefore carry. Just like when I visit Texas I must respect red 51% signs and 30.06 postings. Given that a state has reciprocity with your home state with the understanding that you abide by their laws. I'm going to do a little digging ...

Looks like it is residents that get to carry with out permit in the "constitutional states". Even still the places that unlicensed carry is allowed is a sub set of places a permited individual can carry.

[RoyGBiv]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... ry#Wyoming" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wyoming
On March 2, 2011 Wyoming Governor Matt Mead signed legislation to allow Constitutional Carry.[2] [3] The law officially went into effect on July 1, 2011. Under the law residents can carry concealed or openly without a permit but visitors to the state must have a valid concealed carry permit from a jurisdiction that is recognized by the State of Wyoming.

[gdanaher]

And so the person who is not mobile enough to stand at the firing line or strong enough to fire 50 rounds at a target are precluded from self protection. I know a gentleman who still gets out but is too arthritic to rack a slide or handle individual rounds, but he can point and pull the trigger. His family or friends ensures he is heeled with a ready weapon. But he is incapable of sitting still long enough for the class or able to sustain the rigors of CHL range qualifications. I guess his carrying is "unacceptable".

There's a point in time that, if you are lucky enough to live so long, your child will demand that you turn over the keys to your car because you present a danger to yourself and others. In Texas now, you must have a current photo ID to VOTE, and this was recently passed by a Republican legislature. Go figure. If you are too feeble to get to the DPS office, wait in line for a couple hours and get your picture taken, you can't vote. Seems like that is a basic right as you define them. Same goes for our personal protection. If one is not capable of handling a small pistol, perhaps someone needs to take it away, just for the protection of the senior.

[74novaman]

In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.

Yes, this is why Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Montana are awash in blood, chaos in the streets and rampant negligent discharges from people who don't know what they're doing.

[WildBill]

In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.

Yes, this is why Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Montana are awash in blood, chaos in the streets and rampant negligent discharges from people who don't know what they're doing.

Well said 74novaman.

[jimlongley]

. . . BUT:
The biggest reason I think that widespread permitless carry will end up being a mistake for all of us is because of numbers and is entirely pragmatic. Anytime there is a BG shooting incident in a permitless state, it will be a larger black mark against us. I know the anti's will use ANY and EVERY reason to implement stricter gun laws. But we have a much easier time countering it when we can show, in numbers, how well behaved the CHL community is.

Like it or not, the war will never end. We will never completely win and, hopefully, neither will they. When Jared Loughner walked into the crowd, he was completely legal up until the moment he pulled out his gun and started firing. Now you and I know that even if Arizona still had a CHL requirement, it would have had zero impact on the outcome of that shooting. But if CHL was still in place in AZ (or if the shooting would have occurred in Texas), it would be much easier to make the argument that he was NOT a law abiding gun-owner like the rest of us.

I know it's semantics, but when it comes to convicing John Q. Public, semantics count! In fact, semantics often win the game! Just think of how successful the "assault rifle" moniker has been for the other side.

So in the end, while the expansion of "constitutional carry" seems attractive and while we celebrate the victories, I really fear that it may cause a backlash that will hurt our efforts in the long haul.

So the states that currently have permitless carry are currently being cited by the brady bunch and the anti-rights media as examples of the bad things about permitless carry?

Yes, semantics count, which really means that Laughner was actually committing a crime when he took possession of that gun with the intent to kill his victims.

[terryg]

So the states that currently have permitless carry are currently being cited by the brady bunch and the anti-rights media as examples of the bad things about permitless carry?

No ... not like that. Most anti's don't want the public carrying with or without a permit ... so there will not be a lot of emphasis the permitless aspect. But, the anti's are certinly counting these incidents against us:



Those six are counted as part of this total:



But if this had occurred in Texas, they would not be able to put him on that list.

Now you and I both know that these are bogus numbers and include some self defense and other likely to be no-billed shootings. But the public does not get this.

Again, keep in mind I am not saying the CHL requirement/process has any effect on crime ... only that doing away with it will likely have an effect on our continued ability to show that those who chose to legally carry guns in public are not a threat. Public shooting incidents that occur in states with permitless carry provide little or no PR separation between the criminal gunman and everyday gun owners.

All of our wonderful statistics showing how 'clean' Texas CHL holders are compared to the general population would not exist if we had permitless carry. That is one of many power arguments in our favor that exist solely because we can be counted as a group and because those who chose to commit crimes, by and large, do not bother with the process and are therefore not in our group.

[74novaman]

All of our wonderful statistics showing how 'clean' Texas CHL holders are compared to the general population would not exist if we had permitless carry. That is one of many power arguments in our favor that exist solely because we can be counted as a group and because those who chose to commit crimes, by and large, do not bother with the process and are therefore not in our group.

The nice thing is we can point to the overall crime rate in those states that already have permitless carry. Florida led the way for the CHL laws passed across the nation starting in the 80s.

Now we have examples of states that are, yet again, NOT awash in wild west, blood in the streets that the antis predict EVERY time ANY new pro gun law passes.

Those who look at actual facts can be convinced by other states examples.

Those who look at lies like the brady campaigns stats aren't reachable anyway, and seem to be a rather rabid and tiny minority.

Just to offer a counterpoint.

[Liberty]

In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.

Yes, this is why Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Montana are awash in blood, chaos in the streets and rampant negligent discharges from people who don't know what they're doing.

Its really upsetting when one realizes that we elect folks that believe that we are not as sophisticated or intelligent as those people in the more civilized states.