This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constitutional carry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just an FYI, I'm going to be doing some heavy editing of this article, mainly due to NPOV considerations.
The term, "Constitutional Carry," is an extremely loaded term, and there are significant groups of people who do not believe that unrestricted carry of firearms is not protected by the United States Constitution. This term is primarily used by Gun-Rights advocates, and as a loaded term, should not be used as the primary term in the article.
The term "unrestricted carry" does not carry ideological baggage, and the article should be modified to remove bias.
-- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Using NPOV to claim an articles name is biased does not necessarily make it so. Allow me to present a counter argument:
To debate the status of Constitutional Carry as an established proper noun for this class of legislation or movement by pro-gun groups is disingenuous to readers, and in its self a possible bias. Using the term “Unrestricted Carry “ is just as loaded because it implies that even the most common restriction prohibiting violent criminals from carrying a firearm, is allowed under such legislation, when it is not. Furthermore those from the anti-gun persuasion also acknowledge the term “Constitutional Carry” as a term for this type of bill.
The main reason this is being changed back is because “Unrestricted Carry” is not an accurate way of describing this class of legislation that has been proposed and passed in some states. Many states and localities still have authority to, and do, restrict carry in specific locations, to non-residents, and to ineligible individuals such as felons, even after constitutional carry is passed. Thus the term cannot be used as a standalone term to define this class of legislation or this article. Additionally, there does not seem to be another commonly used term to define this class of legislation which we can title this article.
Groups or organizations can name their movement or ideas with the possibility that the name they choose is going to be disputed or controversial. That does not mean that their choice of name wont at some point become a recognized title or proper noun for their subject regardless of the Etymological underpinnings, or that acknowledging title with a disputed Etymologic background in an encyclopedia article is inherently biased.
A quick web search will reveal that several news outlets including the AP, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel have recognized the title “Constitutional Carry” in their reporting as a phrase relating to this class of legislation [2] [3] [4], while few, if any (I could not fine one), have used “Unrestricted Carry”.
Therefore there was insufficient justification, to change the title of this article and I have changed the references in the article and will be changing the title back shortly.
Additional thoughts and suggestions for review and discussion:
1. If the terminology issue continues to be a point of contention, perhaps we could clarify that dispute it in a section of the article.
2. Is constitutional carry encompassing of both concealed and open carry? Most of the proposals I have read only modify the permit statute of said state to make it optional, thus mostly impacting concealed carry. In states with loose open carry laws it may not make a difference, but isn't the legislative initiative on the end of eliminating the requirement of a permit, while leaving other laws and intact. I will research this further. We may need to remove the open carry reference in the first paragraph, and further address the substance of the article.
[2] The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51308129
[3]Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MWSB&p_theme=mwsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=137C804D80DBD558&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
[4]Associated Press: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/16/arizona-allow-concealed-weapons-permit/
WikiRJF ( talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"The phrase "constitutional carry" reflects the view that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution permits no restrictions or other regulations on gun ownership..."
This sentence does not accurately describe the viewpoint, rather the opening sentence more accurately reflects it.
"In the United States, the term constitutional carry is a neologism for the legal carrying of handgun, either openly or concealed, without the requirement of a government permit."
The view point it reflects is that, because keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right, by definition it is unconstitutional to require a permit to exercise that right. Basically to require a permit is to require permission to exercise a right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.160.234 ( talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I know this debate is dated, but I disagree with the term "constitutional carry", because it implies that states without "constitutional carry" are in violation of the constitution. As of now, there is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a permit to carry a firearm. I would suggest the term "permitless carry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have made a few changes with the arrangement of this article.
I have split the first section into two sections. Section 1 is now "U.S. States that have implemented Constitutional Carry," while Section 2 is now "U.S. States that do not require a license to carry but have limitations for unlicensed open and/or concealed carry." I think the second section is necessary for states that have some circumstances in which one can carry both openly and concealed without a license, but have a significant restriction on that right (e.g. not applicable in certain areas of the state or the weapon must be unloaded). These are the "almost" Constitutional carry states.
I have also merged the former sections 2 (U.S. States considering Constitutional Carry) and 3 (U.S. States with legislation that did not become law). These sections have been merged into one section, called "Other U.S. States that have introduced legislation for Constitutional Carry." There is no need for two different sections for these states. As legislatures debate bills, a state could potentially move from one section to another, or perhaps need to be included in both. In fact, Kentucky was listed in both sections, and the information was nearly the same in both sections.
So to summarize, as of September 2013, there are three sections:
I have also alphabetized the list of states in each section. Mdak06 ( talk) 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per request Mike Cline ( talk) 13:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Constitutional Carry →
Constitutional carry – Currently the sentence case version is redirecting to the uppercase version, but, per the
WP:TITLEFORMAT policy, article titles should be in sentence case. Putting it in uppercase gives the notion of constitutional carry
WP:UNDUE weight. The majority of
WP:RS use sentence case when referring to the topic.
Lightbreather (
talk)
02:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose we remove section 4 U.S. States that have introduced but not passed constitutional carry legislation. The reason is that it is not very notable and Wikipedia is also not a news site that needs to report on progress of legislation. Once it has passed and become law, then it's notable, but otherwise, it's a waste of (outdated) space. Thoughts? Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Note (4/15/16) Passed and now signed into law ( http://www.wdam.com/story/31736352/gov-bryant-signs-church-protection-act). Please update accordingly. This appears to be near full permitless carry due to the provision for holstered carry, which is the primary method of concealed carry). Kindly update accordingly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.194.27 ( talk) 20:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
A question for everyone:
Mississippi has a bill (HB 786) that has passed their House, may pass their Senate, and if it gets to the governor is likely to be signed.
In it, it amends the portion of the code that lays out the requirements for a pistol/revolver license to include this bit at the end:
(24) No license shall be required under this section for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster or carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.
The "purse, handbag, satchel..." part is already law. The new part would be the "sheath, belt holster, or shoulder holster" bit.
There is a guns.com article that describes it as a "constitutional carry" bill. I think that despite being awfully close, it still isn't actually constitutional carry, because you could still run afoul of the law if you wore an undershirt that contains a holster pocket, or simply carried an unholstered firearm in your back pants pocket.
What do you think? Mdak06 ( talk) 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I woould prefering to make residenzler only states as idaho and wyoming only light green in this art.
http://www.bilderload.com/bild/383117/openandhidetLYTDD.jpg
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a category (unsourced) called "Limited Constitutional Carry." It's unclear exactly what "limited" means in this context, as every state that has "constitutional carry" has restrictions that limit where an individual may carry. There is also some ambiguity as to what state(s) are considered "limited." For instance, Montana is shown as "limited" because it restricts carry in 0.6% of the state (mainly cities and towns, a few other places such as logging camps). Yet, Idaho and Wyoming carry no such tag, despite the fact that constitutional carry is only available to residents of those two states. So, here we have Montana, which permits carry for 100% of the qualified US population, while collectively, both Idaho and Wyoming restrict carry to approximately 0.6% of the qualified US population.
It would be great if the term "limited" was either removed completely (since all states with constitutional carry impose limits on where one can carry), or apply the term more fairly to states that have onerous restrictions on constitutional carry (such as Idaho and Wyoming). Pongo000 ( talk) 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
NH just passed SB12, moving them to constitutional carry. [1]
I am assuming we should wait until the governor signs it before updating the article.
That all being said - would one consider NRA-ILA a good/neutral source? I linked one article above as an example.
- Deathsythe ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
References
So it seems like ND may soon be a constitutional carry state. However there's one issue: under the proposed bill, you would still need a license to open carry. We define constitutional carry as not needing a license to carry, either concealed or openly. Should this count as a constitutional carry state, or should it be put under the states with limited forms of constitutional carry? Terrorist96 ( talk) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Technically under the ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in PEOPLE v. DIGGINS (2009) puts Illinois in a spot where theoretically it is legal to conceal a unloaded handgun as long as it's in a "case", which the court ruled to be pretty much anything that fully encloses another item and can be fully sealed which is ruled included even glove boxes and center consoles of cars; So under that ruling it's lawful to carry a unloaded handgun in Illinois as long as it's in some type of case which would include carrying it in a tablet case, or even the soft case that comes with some firearms like the Ruger LCP. -- Thegunkid ( talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
And to add, In Texas until 2005 it was explicitly, and 2007 technically, illegal to have a handgun in your vehicle even if it was unloaded and encased unless you were going from point A to point B; And In Nebraska as of 2016 it is technically illegal to transport a gun in a case, even unloaded, per a Supreme Court ruling on concealed firearms. -- Thegunkid ( talk) 09:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Gov-Kristi-Noem-signs-constitutional-carry-bill-into-law-505145611.html 173.168.246.144 ( talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but having an animated map as the main map on the article really isn't that reader friendly as one has to wait over half a minute to see the current state of carry licensing in the United States when it better serves to have it set aside with a static map of the current state of things like on the Open Carry Page Thegunkid ( talk) 01:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that More than one definition of Non-Resident is used in this article. Some times referring to a person who is not a resident of the USA, and sometimes referring to a person who is not a resident of the subject state. It would be very helpful if someone who know the laws could clarify each usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 ( talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The article states Illinois has a limited form of permitless carry for unloaded handguns that are enclosed in a case. However, it also says that such handgun must be possessed in conjunction with an Illinois FOID.
It is required for an Illinois resident to possess a handgun. FOID_(firearms). The FOID is only issued by the Illinois State Police after a background check and is directly related to the possession of a firearm (which is prerequisite to carry one).
Given that a FOID is a permit, and that it is required to carry an unloaded handgun enclosed in a case, it does not seem appropriate to describe this as a limited form of permitless carry. A permit, specifically an Illinois FOID, is required. LonghornBob ( talk) 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Further to this point. There are five shall issue states (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Washington) that do not have a training requirement to obtain a concealed carry license. If Illinois, which as the article states, requires a government issued FOID card to carry an unloaded handgun enclosed in case is considered a "permitless carry" state, then any state that does not require training to carry (but does require a license) could also be considered "permitless carry" in some sense. Thus, the inclusion of Illinois in this section should be removed. LonghornBob ( talk) 23:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Non-residents carrying a unloaded firearm in a 'case' are exempt from the requirement to have FOID cards. 430 ILCS 65/2 (9). Thegunkid ( talk) 09:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As of May 1, 2022, this article stated that in North Dakota a permit is required for a resident to open carry a loaded handgun. However, the law applicable to the carrying of handguns openly, N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-03-01, states:
The bolded language is the same language used in N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-04-02 as the exception from the requirement that a resident have a license to concealed carry:
LonghornBob ( talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not clear to me where the statute specifies that a permit is required for a resident to openly carry a loaded handgun. LonghornBob ( talk) 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The following two sentences in the Kentucky section are internally inconsistent: "It allows residents and non-residents who are 21 years old or older who are otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, to carry concealed firearms (or any other weapon) without a permit. Residents and non-residents under 21 may open carry without a permit, or conceal carry if they are a non-resident and hold a valid out-of-state concealed carry permit."
I believe that in Kentucky, non-residents ARE allowed to conceal carry without a permit. See https://kentuckystatepolice.org/ccdw/ccdw-home/permitless-carry/#1562159961585-fa58bab7-926a which states in part "Any person who is eligible to possess a firearm under the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is permitted to carry a concealed firearm or other concealed deadly weapon in Kentucky, without regard to their citizenship or state of residence." Bartonkj ( talk) 20:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This article likely needs a major rework with today's Supreme Court decision. This decision effectively made Constitutional Carry the law of the land nationwide (allowing for very limited exceptions). 45.50.109.42 ( talk) 01:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes! I was just reading all of this after I got off work. This is a huge move back in the right direction for protecting all of our rights as Americans! Nlnorris0029 ( talk) 02:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This decision did NOT make constitutional carry the law of the land. Bruen leaves states to require permits to carry concealed handguns, but found good-cause requirements to be unconstitutional. This case makes shall-issue the standard for CCW permits. Kavanaugh's concurrence explained as much. MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 02:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to post this note here for those that may not know yet since the page isn't updated. The Supreme Court just over rulled New York and further extended protection of constitutional carry across the country saying it is the American people's right to open or concealed carry in the U.S.A. There are still gonna be certain off limit locations and states are gonna regulate gun laws, but according to the S.C.O.T.U.S law abiding citizens of this country's secondamendment right shall not be infringed. 2603:6080:300:3C00:8873:8BE9:71EE:9989 ( talk) 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This isn't what the Supreme Court said. The holding made in Bruen says that states which require permits to carry concealed handguns, cannot require an applicant to establish good-cause. This makes shall-issue the standard for states that had may-issue policies. This does NOT make constitutional carry the law of the land. Kavanaugh's concurrence said as much. MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 03:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Right now, Florida is in the "U.S. states that have a limited form of permitless concealed carry" section of the article instead of the "U.S. jurisdictions that have constitutional carry" section. Yes, Florida bans open carry, but (1) it is not a "limited form of permitless concealed carry", like NM, WA, or IL as it applies generally to law-abiding citizens like the "constitutional carry" states, and (2) there are states in the "constitutional carry" section that have restrictions or ambiguities on open carry (e.g., Missouri allows localities to restrict unlicensed open carry; North Dakota's treatment of open carry is ambiguous and as of April 3, 2023 constitutional carry doesn't apply to non-residents).
Florida either belongs in the "constitutional carry" section, with a note similar to the one ND has "Florida (concealed carry only)" or in its own section separate from NM, WA, and IL. LonghornBob ( talk) 12:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Constitutional carry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just an FYI, I'm going to be doing some heavy editing of this article, mainly due to NPOV considerations.
The term, "Constitutional Carry," is an extremely loaded term, and there are significant groups of people who do not believe that unrestricted carry of firearms is not protected by the United States Constitution. This term is primarily used by Gun-Rights advocates, and as a loaded term, should not be used as the primary term in the article.
The term "unrestricted carry" does not carry ideological baggage, and the article should be modified to remove bias.
-- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Using NPOV to claim an articles name is biased does not necessarily make it so. Allow me to present a counter argument:
To debate the status of Constitutional Carry as an established proper noun for this class of legislation or movement by pro-gun groups is disingenuous to readers, and in its self a possible bias. Using the term “Unrestricted Carry “ is just as loaded because it implies that even the most common restriction prohibiting violent criminals from carrying a firearm, is allowed under such legislation, when it is not. Furthermore those from the anti-gun persuasion also acknowledge the term “Constitutional Carry” as a term for this type of bill.
The main reason this is being changed back is because “Unrestricted Carry” is not an accurate way of describing this class of legislation that has been proposed and passed in some states. Many states and localities still have authority to, and do, restrict carry in specific locations, to non-residents, and to ineligible individuals such as felons, even after constitutional carry is passed. Thus the term cannot be used as a standalone term to define this class of legislation or this article. Additionally, there does not seem to be another commonly used term to define this class of legislation which we can title this article.
Groups or organizations can name their movement or ideas with the possibility that the name they choose is going to be disputed or controversial. That does not mean that their choice of name wont at some point become a recognized title or proper noun for their subject regardless of the Etymological underpinnings, or that acknowledging title with a disputed Etymologic background in an encyclopedia article is inherently biased.
A quick web search will reveal that several news outlets including the AP, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel have recognized the title “Constitutional Carry” in their reporting as a phrase relating to this class of legislation [2] [3] [4], while few, if any (I could not fine one), have used “Unrestricted Carry”.
Therefore there was insufficient justification, to change the title of this article and I have changed the references in the article and will be changing the title back shortly.
Additional thoughts and suggestions for review and discussion:
1. If the terminology issue continues to be a point of contention, perhaps we could clarify that dispute it in a section of the article.
2. Is constitutional carry encompassing of both concealed and open carry? Most of the proposals I have read only modify the permit statute of said state to make it optional, thus mostly impacting concealed carry. In states with loose open carry laws it may not make a difference, but isn't the legislative initiative on the end of eliminating the requirement of a permit, while leaving other laws and intact. I will research this further. We may need to remove the open carry reference in the first paragraph, and further address the substance of the article.
[2] The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51308129
[3]Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MWSB&p_theme=mwsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=137C804D80DBD558&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
[4]Associated Press: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/16/arizona-allow-concealed-weapons-permit/
WikiRJF ( talk) 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"The phrase "constitutional carry" reflects the view that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution permits no restrictions or other regulations on gun ownership..."
This sentence does not accurately describe the viewpoint, rather the opening sentence more accurately reflects it.
"In the United States, the term constitutional carry is a neologism for the legal carrying of handgun, either openly or concealed, without the requirement of a government permit."
The view point it reflects is that, because keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right, by definition it is unconstitutional to require a permit to exercise that right. Basically to require a permit is to require permission to exercise a right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.160.234 ( talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I know this debate is dated, but I disagree with the term "constitutional carry", because it implies that states without "constitutional carry" are in violation of the constitution. As of now, there is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a permit to carry a firearm. I would suggest the term "permitless carry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have made a few changes with the arrangement of this article.
I have split the first section into two sections. Section 1 is now "U.S. States that have implemented Constitutional Carry," while Section 2 is now "U.S. States that do not require a license to carry but have limitations for unlicensed open and/or concealed carry." I think the second section is necessary for states that have some circumstances in which one can carry both openly and concealed without a license, but have a significant restriction on that right (e.g. not applicable in certain areas of the state or the weapon must be unloaded). These are the "almost" Constitutional carry states.
I have also merged the former sections 2 (U.S. States considering Constitutional Carry) and 3 (U.S. States with legislation that did not become law). These sections have been merged into one section, called "Other U.S. States that have introduced legislation for Constitutional Carry." There is no need for two different sections for these states. As legislatures debate bills, a state could potentially move from one section to another, or perhaps need to be included in both. In fact, Kentucky was listed in both sections, and the information was nearly the same in both sections.
So to summarize, as of September 2013, there are three sections:
I have also alphabetized the list of states in each section. Mdak06 ( talk) 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per request Mike Cline ( talk) 13:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Constitutional Carry →
Constitutional carry – Currently the sentence case version is redirecting to the uppercase version, but, per the
WP:TITLEFORMAT policy, article titles should be in sentence case. Putting it in uppercase gives the notion of constitutional carry
WP:UNDUE weight. The majority of
WP:RS use sentence case when referring to the topic.
Lightbreather (
talk)
02:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose we remove section 4 U.S. States that have introduced but not passed constitutional carry legislation. The reason is that it is not very notable and Wikipedia is also not a news site that needs to report on progress of legislation. Once it has passed and become law, then it's notable, but otherwise, it's a waste of (outdated) space. Thoughts? Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Note (4/15/16) Passed and now signed into law ( http://www.wdam.com/story/31736352/gov-bryant-signs-church-protection-act). Please update accordingly. This appears to be near full permitless carry due to the provision for holstered carry, which is the primary method of concealed carry). Kindly update accordingly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.194.27 ( talk) 20:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
A question for everyone:
Mississippi has a bill (HB 786) that has passed their House, may pass their Senate, and if it gets to the governor is likely to be signed.
In it, it amends the portion of the code that lays out the requirements for a pistol/revolver license to include this bit at the end:
(24) No license shall be required under this section for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster or carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.
The "purse, handbag, satchel..." part is already law. The new part would be the "sheath, belt holster, or shoulder holster" bit.
There is a guns.com article that describes it as a "constitutional carry" bill. I think that despite being awfully close, it still isn't actually constitutional carry, because you could still run afoul of the law if you wore an undershirt that contains a holster pocket, or simply carried an unholstered firearm in your back pants pocket.
What do you think? Mdak06 ( talk) 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I woould prefering to make residenzler only states as idaho and wyoming only light green in this art.
http://www.bilderload.com/bild/383117/openandhidetLYTDD.jpg
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a category (unsourced) called "Limited Constitutional Carry." It's unclear exactly what "limited" means in this context, as every state that has "constitutional carry" has restrictions that limit where an individual may carry. There is also some ambiguity as to what state(s) are considered "limited." For instance, Montana is shown as "limited" because it restricts carry in 0.6% of the state (mainly cities and towns, a few other places such as logging camps). Yet, Idaho and Wyoming carry no such tag, despite the fact that constitutional carry is only available to residents of those two states. So, here we have Montana, which permits carry for 100% of the qualified US population, while collectively, both Idaho and Wyoming restrict carry to approximately 0.6% of the qualified US population.
It would be great if the term "limited" was either removed completely (since all states with constitutional carry impose limits on where one can carry), or apply the term more fairly to states that have onerous restrictions on constitutional carry (such as Idaho and Wyoming). Pongo000 ( talk) 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
NH just passed SB12, moving them to constitutional carry. [1]
I am assuming we should wait until the governor signs it before updating the article.
That all being said - would one consider NRA-ILA a good/neutral source? I linked one article above as an example.
- Deathsythe ( talk) 23:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
References
So it seems like ND may soon be a constitutional carry state. However there's one issue: under the proposed bill, you would still need a license to open carry. We define constitutional carry as not needing a license to carry, either concealed or openly. Should this count as a constitutional carry state, or should it be put under the states with limited forms of constitutional carry? Terrorist96 ( talk) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Constitutional carry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Technically under the ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in PEOPLE v. DIGGINS (2009) puts Illinois in a spot where theoretically it is legal to conceal a unloaded handgun as long as it's in a "case", which the court ruled to be pretty much anything that fully encloses another item and can be fully sealed which is ruled included even glove boxes and center consoles of cars; So under that ruling it's lawful to carry a unloaded handgun in Illinois as long as it's in some type of case which would include carrying it in a tablet case, or even the soft case that comes with some firearms like the Ruger LCP. -- Thegunkid ( talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
And to add, In Texas until 2005 it was explicitly, and 2007 technically, illegal to have a handgun in your vehicle even if it was unloaded and encased unless you were going from point A to point B; And In Nebraska as of 2016 it is technically illegal to transport a gun in a case, even unloaded, per a Supreme Court ruling on concealed firearms. -- Thegunkid ( talk) 09:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Gov-Kristi-Noem-signs-constitutional-carry-bill-into-law-505145611.html 173.168.246.144 ( talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but having an animated map as the main map on the article really isn't that reader friendly as one has to wait over half a minute to see the current state of carry licensing in the United States when it better serves to have it set aside with a static map of the current state of things like on the Open Carry Page Thegunkid ( talk) 01:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that More than one definition of Non-Resident is used in this article. Some times referring to a person who is not a resident of the USA, and sometimes referring to a person who is not a resident of the subject state. It would be very helpful if someone who know the laws could clarify each usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.208.30 ( talk) 18:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The article states Illinois has a limited form of permitless carry for unloaded handguns that are enclosed in a case. However, it also says that such handgun must be possessed in conjunction with an Illinois FOID.
It is required for an Illinois resident to possess a handgun. FOID_(firearms). The FOID is only issued by the Illinois State Police after a background check and is directly related to the possession of a firearm (which is prerequisite to carry one).
Given that a FOID is a permit, and that it is required to carry an unloaded handgun enclosed in a case, it does not seem appropriate to describe this as a limited form of permitless carry. A permit, specifically an Illinois FOID, is required. LonghornBob ( talk) 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Further to this point. There are five shall issue states (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Washington) that do not have a training requirement to obtain a concealed carry license. If Illinois, which as the article states, requires a government issued FOID card to carry an unloaded handgun enclosed in case is considered a "permitless carry" state, then any state that does not require training to carry (but does require a license) could also be considered "permitless carry" in some sense. Thus, the inclusion of Illinois in this section should be removed. LonghornBob ( talk) 23:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Non-residents carrying a unloaded firearm in a 'case' are exempt from the requirement to have FOID cards. 430 ILCS 65/2 (9). Thegunkid ( talk) 09:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As of May 1, 2022, this article stated that in North Dakota a permit is required for a resident to open carry a loaded handgun. However, the law applicable to the carrying of handguns openly, N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-03-01, states:
The bolded language is the same language used in N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-04-02 as the exception from the requirement that a resident have a license to concealed carry:
LonghornBob ( talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not clear to me where the statute specifies that a permit is required for a resident to openly carry a loaded handgun. LonghornBob ( talk) 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The following two sentences in the Kentucky section are internally inconsistent: "It allows residents and non-residents who are 21 years old or older who are otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, to carry concealed firearms (or any other weapon) without a permit. Residents and non-residents under 21 may open carry without a permit, or conceal carry if they are a non-resident and hold a valid out-of-state concealed carry permit."
I believe that in Kentucky, non-residents ARE allowed to conceal carry without a permit. See https://kentuckystatepolice.org/ccdw/ccdw-home/permitless-carry/#1562159961585-fa58bab7-926a which states in part "Any person who is eligible to possess a firearm under the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is permitted to carry a concealed firearm or other concealed deadly weapon in Kentucky, without regard to their citizenship or state of residence." Bartonkj ( talk) 20:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This article likely needs a major rework with today's Supreme Court decision. This decision effectively made Constitutional Carry the law of the land nationwide (allowing for very limited exceptions). 45.50.109.42 ( talk) 01:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes! I was just reading all of this after I got off work. This is a huge move back in the right direction for protecting all of our rights as Americans! Nlnorris0029 ( talk) 02:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This decision did NOT make constitutional carry the law of the land. Bruen leaves states to require permits to carry concealed handguns, but found good-cause requirements to be unconstitutional. This case makes shall-issue the standard for CCW permits. Kavanaugh's concurrence explained as much. MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 02:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to post this note here for those that may not know yet since the page isn't updated. The Supreme Court just over rulled New York and further extended protection of constitutional carry across the country saying it is the American people's right to open or concealed carry in the U.S.A. There are still gonna be certain off limit locations and states are gonna regulate gun laws, but according to the S.C.O.T.U.S law abiding citizens of this country's secondamendment right shall not be infringed. 2603:6080:300:3C00:8873:8BE9:71EE:9989 ( talk) 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This isn't what the Supreme Court said. The holding made in Bruen says that states which require permits to carry concealed handguns, cannot require an applicant to establish good-cause. This makes shall-issue the standard for states that had may-issue policies. This does NOT make constitutional carry the law of the land. Kavanaugh's concurrence said as much. MrThunderbolt1000T ( talk) 03:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Right now, Florida is in the "U.S. states that have a limited form of permitless concealed carry" section of the article instead of the "U.S. jurisdictions that have constitutional carry" section. Yes, Florida bans open carry, but (1) it is not a "limited form of permitless concealed carry", like NM, WA, or IL as it applies generally to law-abiding citizens like the "constitutional carry" states, and (2) there are states in the "constitutional carry" section that have restrictions or ambiguities on open carry (e.g., Missouri allows localities to restrict unlicensed open carry; North Dakota's treatment of open carry is ambiguous and as of April 3, 2023 constitutional carry doesn't apply to non-residents).
Florida either belongs in the "constitutional carry" section, with a note similar to the one ND has "Florida (concealed carry only)" or in its own section separate from NM, WA, and IL. LonghornBob ( talk) 12:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)