Posted on 12/27/2023 4:52:14 AM PST by marktwain
In 2023, Constitutional Carry (permitless) was restored to 26 states. Vermont always had Constitutional Carry. Those states make up 65% of the land area of the United States of America. According to John Lott, those 27 states contain 44% of the population of the United States. When will a majority of the people in the United States enjoy permitless carry, as well as a majority of the states?
It is highly likely Louisiana will join the Constitutional Carry Club in early 2024. Louisiana’s inclusion will increase the percentage of the land area with constitutional carry from 65.3% to over two-thirds, with 66.7% of the land area. Louisiana increased the percentage of the population to 45.4 percent. The estimated population in 2023 is about 340 million people. 4.6% of 340 million is 15.6 million people. There are several states that are candidates for Constitutional Carry, which could be combined to place the population of people in states where a permit is not required for over 50% of the population of the USA.
One of the most likely of those states is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania passed Constitutional Carry, with significant margins in its legislature, in 2021. Anti-Second Amendment Governor Tom Wolf vetoed Senate Bill 565. A Republican governor in Pennsylvania and a Republican legislature would very likely pass a Constitutional Carry bill. Pennsylvania has a population of about 12.96 million people in 2023. Pennsylvania would put the United States very close to a majority of the population living in permitless carry states. There have been significant voting irregularities in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia. It is difficult to prosecute people for election fraud when one political party controls all the levers of power in a city or state.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I hope I live to see the day when only California and Nuevo York have restrictions.
It already is. Concealed means concealed
If it were the gun owners in America were the problem, all you bleeding heart liberals out there simply would cease to exist.
Until your prosecuted for defending yourself.
I believe they said more illegals then that has come across the southern border in the past three years years... Think about that for a while..
A decent Supreme Court ought to make this uniform across the country. It’s NOT a state issue.
Every state in the United States allows for concealed carry of a handgun either permitless or with a permit, although the difficulty in obtaining a permit varies per jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Effect_on_crime_and_deaths
They are opposed by several inferior appeals courts, the Biden administration, three far left justices, almost the entire media, almost the entire education establishment, and most of the national "intelligence" services, such as FBI and CIA.
On the Supreme Court's side are: Truth, the law, the Constitution, most of the culture in about 40 states, about half of state governments, and "conservative " media, such as it is.
Yes, that is the crux of the matter.
This is a very difficult subject to determine. The privilege to bear arms indescriminately is a two sided sword. I believe there should be descretion when allowing some people to carry especially when they can get one in any back alley in any city in the US. If there are no restrictions, which includes responsibility for the use of the weapon, then we are right back into allowing the criminal element, and the inexperienced or ill, to get access. And then the determination of that happens after innocents get hurt or killed.
Permitless carry in many states includes states where an individual must meet certain qualifications, e.g., no DUIs in the last 10 years, in order to legally carry. But isn’t that right back to having that data base on owners the gun enthusiasts are not in favor of with registration so the user can be determined qualified to make the decision when it comes? Qualified can detemine a repeated criminal, a mentally unstable person, a youth with no experience even to the point of underaged and not held responsible?
We have a huge amount of gun crime in the US now. Do we want to invite more because of a lack of qualification certification?
I own two. One handgun and a twenty guage semi auto shotgun so my spouse can use it without the recoil of a 12 guage or bigger. I grew up with guns on a ranch shooting rabbits, quail and dove. I spent 35 plus years with the military and they were the tool for what I did. But does that qualify me now? Am I old enough, experienced enough, observant enough, and not a criminal or mentally imbalanced person...who knows if no one asks? Two sided sword.
wy69
This is a very difficult subject to determine. The privilege to bear arms indescriminately is a two sided sword. I believe there should be descretion when allowing some people to carry especially when they can get one in any back alley in any city in the US. If there are no restrictions, which includes responsibility for the use of the weapon, then we are right back into allowing the criminal element, and the inexperienced or ill, to get access. And then the determination of that happens after innocents get hurt or killed.
Permitless carry in many states includes states where an individual must meet certain qualifications, e.g., no DUIs in the last 10 years, in order to legally carry. But isn’t that right back to having that data base on owners the gun enthusiasts are not in favor of with registration so the user can be determined qualified to make the decision when it comes? Qualified can detemine a repeated criminal, a mentally unstable person, a youth with no experience even to the point of underaged and not held responsible?
We have a huge amount of gun crime in the US now. Do we want to invite more because of a lack of qualification certification?
I own two. One handgun and a twenty guage semi auto shotgun so my spouse can use it without the recoil of a 12 guage or bigger. I grew up with guns on a ranch shooting rabbits, quail and dove. I spent 35 plus years with the military and they were the tool for what I did. But does that qualify me now? Am I old enough, experienced enough, observant enough, and not a criminal or mentally imbalanced person...who knows if no one asks? Two sided sword.
wy69
Pennsylvania is remarkably easy to get a non-resident permit if you have a permit from your state of residence. I live in Maryland. About 30 states recognize the Maryland permit, Maryland doesn’t reciprocate and recognizes no other state permits. I have a PA permit because PA is one of the states that doesn’t recognize Maryland.
I don’t see PA or MI going Constitutional Carry anytime soon. Michigan is deeply poisoned with leftist legislature and the stupid Governess Whitmer.
Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and Democrats have slim control of the house. The Governor is a leftist but I think he’s a bit better than Tom Wolf, the previous governor. But Pittsburgh and Philadelphia control the state. Philadelphia is leftist heaven
as long as the Constitution exists... i can carry.
Second Amendment supporters have always strongly supported responsibility for the use of a weapon.
There is no persuasive evidence which shows making it difficult for non-criminals to access firearms decreases violent crime committed by criminals.
Using the term "gun crime" shows the propaganda of those who wish you disarmed is effective.
Gun crime is an Orwellian term designed to link guns and crime. The proper metric is simply crime, or certain types of crime.
Consider this: if outlawing guns happens, and the total murder rate goes up, while the rate of murder with guns goes down, is this a desirable outcome?
The total murder rate is the important metric.
Researcher John Lott states when restrictions on guns are imposed, the total murder rate always goes up, no exceptions.
as a percentage, sure... but once a super majority is reached it should be nationwide, no?
It should always have been nationwide. It *was* nationwide, and accepted as such, until after the Civil War. Even then, it was mostly accepted.
What happened was the majority accepted restrictions on disfavored minorities.
Then the restrictions were imposed on the majority populations.
Then we started fighting back, and now the fight has been producing results.
Bingo. My tagline is the modern version. Good thread.
You’ve got to take it just like the fatasses waddling across the Rio Grande are taking their “immigrant rights”. Not from their home sh*t holes but from the US taxpayers. If the U.S. Government don’t like it, F’em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.