Concealed Carry In the United States - Politics
(from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Legal Liability & Vehicle Carry
State Permit Issue Policies
Concealed Carry Statistics
CCW Effects on Crime
Politics
Laws:
Typical policies that are utilized to determine who can legally carry concealed weapons are prohibition of concealed carry, discretionary licensing, non-discretionary licensing, minimum age requirements (e.g., 18 or 21 years), successful completion of an instructor-led course, and marksmanship/handling qualification on a firing range. Less common is unregulated, legal concealed carry such as in Vermont and Alaska.
Some states, such as New York, also ban specific makes and models of pistols, mostly small so-called "saturday night specials" such as the Beretta 950-B, and will not under any circumstances issue a permit for those specific weapons. Other states ban carrying handguns with large capacity magazines. The exact same pistol may be carried with a smaller magazine and the permit holder may have as many "extra" magazines as they desire, however.
Weapon possession, in the context of concealed weapons, is a crime of that circumstance in which a person who is not legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon is found in possession of such a weapon. In the United States, it can also be interpreted as the possession of a firearm by a person legally disqualified from doing so under the Gun Control Act. Depending on state law, it can also apply to concealed carry of otherwise illegal knives such as stilettos, dirks or switchblades.
Even in localities where concealed carrying is permitted, there may be legal restrictions on where a person may carry a concealed weapon unless state law overrides a business posting that no firearms are allowed. Typical examples include the prohibition of concealed carry in:
- public or private elementary and secondary schools (the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 contains an exception for individuals carrying under a state-issued permit, but some states that issue permits forbid carry in school buildings and/or on school property),
- establishments that sell alcohol (some ban carry from all such establishments such as retail liquor stores and supermarkets, others from businesses that sell alcohol "by the drink" for on-premises consumption such as restaurants, still others only from businesses falling under the state's definition of a "bar" or "nightclub"),
- government buildings (State Capitol, courthouses, police stations, federal buildings, post offices),
- public accommodations (theaters, concert halls), and/or
- public events (polling places, state fairs, public parks, stadiums and other sporting venues).
"Opt-Out" statutes ("Gun-Free Zones"):
Many states (e.g., Minnesota, South Carolina, Texas), in addition to outright bans on concealed carry in some or all of the places mentioned above, allow any business to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit. In Texas for instance, the applicable statute is Section 30.06 of the Texas Penal Code, and requires that a sign in contrasting colors, with letters at least 1 inch (25.4 mm) high, with exactly the following text in both English and Spanish, be posted at every entrance to a business prohibiting concealed carry:
"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."
By posting the signs, businesses create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun similar to schools, hospitals, and public events. In addition to signage, virtually all jurisdictions also allow some form of oral communication by the lawful owner or controller of the property that a person is not welcome and should leave. This notice can be given to anyone for any reason, including due to the carrying of firearms by that person, and refusal to heed such a request to leave constitutes trespassing. In some jurisdictions trespass by a person carrying a firearm may have more severe penalties than "simple" trespass.
Support:
Proponents state a property owner has the right to ban carry of concealed weapons on their property, for any reason or no reason.
In addition, signage can act to limit the liability of the property owner. By posting signs encouraging, discouraging, requiring or prohibiting an action, the business not only influences actions, but largely avoids liability by arguing that the harm would not have occurred had the individual responsible heeded the notice.
There is legal precedent both to support and oppose this argument depending on the severity and nature of the situation, and on State law governing the posting of such signs and governing liability in general. While some jurisdictions affirm the logic in the above paragraph, other jurisdictions have rejected it, saying instead that by prohibiting guns while not taking all reasonable measures to provide effective substitute security (as evidenced by the failure of existing security to prevent a particular shooting), the owner has placed their guests at an increased risk of harm. Some states are considering bills codifying this logic.
Opposition:
"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested. Opponents claim these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also possibly harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed or to others who may decide to leave the firearm locked in their vehicle, perhaps increasing the chance that it will be stolen.
Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.
Grey Zones:
In some situations, business owners post signs that appear to prohibit guns, but because the signs do not meet State or local law defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign, the sign does not carry the force of law and a permit holder can legally ignore it.
In Texas, for example, the specifications of a Section 30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry are clearly defined, and only a sign meeting the specifications carries the force of the section. A sign, for example, that depicts the silhouette of a gun with a red circle and slash (similar to other signs prohibiting an action), that simply says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED", is too small, has incorrect text, is printed only in English or Spanish and not both languages, or is not placed prominently can technically be ignored as it doesn't fulfill the requirements to ban permit holders from carrying concealed. Many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, but such is explicitly taught by the state licensed concealed carry instructors.
Conversely, the intent of posting such a sign may only be to discourage entry while carrying by those unfamiliar with the law, which (almost by definition) typically includes only those not licensed to carry concealed handguns. Because a licensee is trained to recognize a valid sign and differentiate it from a non-binding sign (in some states, Florida for example provides no such training on sign posting, wording, or size regulations), posting an invalid sign for this purpose serves as a form of doublespeak, reassuring patrons who oppose concealed carry while at the same time not actually prohibiting concealed carry.
Civil Liberties:
It has been argued by some that requiring individuals to have a permit in order to legally carry is unconstitutional. In their December 2004 article "Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?", the gun rights organization Gun Owners of America argues: "Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right." The article then goes on to cite an example of a United States Supreme Court ruling in regard to the First Amendment: "The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers—even if such material is 'communist political propaganda'." Proponents claim carry permits are a positive aspect of firearm ownership as there are lower instances of gun crime among permit holders than other gun owners, and concealed carry permit training courses and proficiency tests validate a sufficient level of competence and knowledge of responsibilities as a gun owner. A known counterargument is the claim that the actual criminals choose not to obtain permits and as such render the permits unnecessary.