Progress in Right-to-Carry

Radical Gun-Nuttery ^ | 26 April 2003 | Jeff Dege

[jdege]

Progress in Right-to-Carry

Over the last 15 years, gun owners have made significant progress in having their right to carry firearms for their own defense.

You've all seen the NRA's map, but it gives little sense of the progress we've made.

I've pulled together what information I could find, and combined it in an animated map, so we could see at a glance how things have changed from year to year.

[jdege]

Something I put together recently, and hope to have to update soon...

[jdege]

Bang!

[rontorr]

what does shall issue mean? And are you talking about concealed carry permits?

[jdege]

Yes.

Shall-issue means objective standards for carry permit issue - where the issuing authority has no discretion to deny to a qualified individual.

[Shooter 2.5]

Awesome!

I can watch that all day. Thanks to you for all of your hard work and efforts with Minnesota. I can't wait to watch the fun Monday. I know there is a lot of hard work that still has to be done and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. With any luck, Wisconsin and Kansas should be next because of their Second Amendment in their state constitutions.

And hopefully the voters will note who tried to block this legislation on election day.

[rontorr]

thanks for the work, this is the best news I've heard for awhile. I just returned from several years in Thailand, where everything is legal as long as you don't get caught...without enough cash in your pocket. It just took me 26 days to purchase a handgun, in Oregon, with a totally clean record, what instacheck? Now I know I can go to get a permit so I can transport it outside of the damp trunk.

[heckler]

I dont have much hope for Kansas. Our Democrat governor Kathleen Sebelius said she would support letting off duty and retired cops carry, but not the commoners. We couldnt get a RINO to sign it, I doubt if she will.

[Shooter 2.5]

Check the progress in Ohio. They have a governor who said he wouldn't sign a CCW Bill.

There are three people who are sueing and they won in the State Supreme Court. Kansas could do the exact same thing.

By the way, thanks for the reminder. Ohio may be the next in line instead of Kansas or Wisconsin.

[Shooter 2.5]

I didn't know about New Mexico even though I had downloaded the map last week.

New Mexico's law becomes effective January, 2004.

[supercat]

Only four more before we reach the 38 necessary for Conceal Carry to be carried by states as a constitutional amendment. Too bad that, thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment, such a thing would have trouble getting through the Senate.

[heckler]

What about Missouri? I thought that they had been getting pretty close.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Rhode Island is technically a "shall issue" state.

We won a case recently forcing the chiefs to accept applications in accordance with the law and state constitution. The commies in the legislature are waiting until something distractive happens to try and change the law. But right now, we are shall issue.

Nice map. Kind of surprising. You get a dark view when you live so far behind enemy lines. Didn't realize so much progress had been made.

[RicocheT]

Excellent map, thanks.

MN may soon pass, God willing.

[Shooter 2.5]

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

[El Gato]

With any luck, Wisconsin and Kansas should be next because of their Second Amendment in their state constitutions.

Nebraska has a very strong RKBA provion in it's state constitution, strenghtened in the 1980s to make it perfectly clear that the right was for any lawful purpose, not just militia use. It's a right to keep and bear, so it's possible that any CHL law would run afoul of the state Constitution, as does the current "no carry" or "no issue" law.

AFAIK, the state courts haven't taken up the issue since the 1980s change to the state Constitution.

[xm177e2]

Very nice map. The way to win the battle over gun rights is to keep spreading shall-issue (or Vermont-style) CCW. Once we create a gun culture in a state, and the non-gun owners see it isn't so bad (and decide to tolerate it), we can start forcing gun rights as a political issue, which means electing people to congress who will vote against things like the Assault Weapons Ban.

[xm177e2]

Why did so much happen in 1995? Was that because of the "Republican Revolution" Newt led in 1994? (I know the US Congress didn't change the laws in the states, but maybe a lot of state-level Republicans rode in on Newt's coattails.)

[El Gato]

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

Anti concealed carry exceptions to state RKBA provisions go back to (at least) the post civil war period, in southern and border states, like Missouri. The provisions were never intended to be used against the white population, but rather against newly free slaves and in the case of Texas, "Mexicans"(regardless that their ancestors had been in Texas somewhat before the Gringos arrived).

It's kind of interesting that "concealed" carry was thought to be only the province of highwaymen and other 'ner do wells. When those provisions were passed, open carry was common, and legal in most places. (Although some of the provisions speak of the wearing of arms, as in Texas) Now open carry, even by permited individuals, is thought to be behond the pale, something sure to cause distruption and bad cases of the vapors among the hoplophobes.

[supercat]

Anti concealed carry exceptions to state RKBA provisions go back to (at least) the post civil war period, in southern and border states, like Missouri.

At least one at the time of the Revolution, IIRC.

[Shooter 2.5]

Here you go:

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).


I wonder what the Nebraskans are waiting for with a Second Amendment like this. Do they have a Lib State Supreme Court?