Progress in Right-to-Carry

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

[Shooter 2.5]

Not according to this, unless you were writing about local laws:

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/statedat.htm

I suppose some of the states simply didn't have a provision.

[supercat]

Not according to this, unless you were writing about local laws:

Hmm... wish I had that other cite handy. Looking through this one, it appears that the text about concealed handguns was probably added later, and the other author had failed to note that. Interesting.

[Eaker]

Great map and great progress getting back what never should have been taken away!!!

[jdege]

Can you point me to the case?

Both the NRAILA and packing.org have RI listed as may-issue.

[jdege]

Minnesota is going to pass the shall-issue bill on Monday.

[jdege]

Seven states adopted shall-issue in 1995 - and I screwed up the map for 1994, so that it's changes didn't show up.

I've fixed that, now.

[jdege]

I saw a news report that the Nebraska legislature had passed a shall-issue bill, but it said something about it having to pass again before it becomes law.

Nebraska is the state with a unicameral legislature, and their rules seem a little odd.

[Freedom4US]

I've wondered about prior military service members. It only seems logical - they've put their asses on the line (either draftees or volunteer) so it is absurd to deny a permit, or require a Mandatory State Certified Safety Course.

I Also Hate How Every Word Gets Capitalized Now.

This country is starting to piss me off, I only stay around out of spite.

[Shooter 2.5]

After a half hour, all I found was a CCW law that they discussed the first part of this month and then, nothing. I couldn't find anything on the State Rifle Association Board or the State website.

I don't know. Maybe it died in committee.

[jdege]

The link appears to be dead.

http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/2081666/detail.html

Concealed Weapons Bill Passes First-Round Debate Lawmakers Advance Bill On 31-14 Vote

UPDATED: 3:50 p.m. CST April 1, 2003

LINCOLN -- A bill that would allow people to carry concealed weapons passed the first of three rounds of debate Tuesday.

The bill's sponsor said he thinks it will become law.

It must pass two more rounds of debate before heading to Gov. Mike Johanns; Johanns has said he would sign the bill.

Sen. Gene Tyson of Norfolk, the bill's sponsor, said he thinks the bill will continue to have enough support to pass.

Tyson said senators realize Nebraska needs to change its law that bans concealed weapons.

A version of the bill was first introduced in 1996. A bill advanced in 1998, but went no further.

The last time a concealed-weapons bill was debated was 1999.

Supporters say they have a right to carry concealed weapons.

But Lincoln Sen. Dave Landis said the bill is not about the right to have a gun. He said because the bill seeks to allow concealed guns, the safety of other people are put at risk.

Lincoln Sen. Ron Raikes said he does not believe the bill is good public policy.

Lincoln Sen. Mike Foley said the arguments of bill opponents are not persuasive.

Foley said he is persuaded by the fact that 43 other states allow some sort of concealed weapons and report no problems.

The lack of strong opposition from the law-enforcement community also influences his support of the bill, Foley said.

[terilyn]

You have done a terrific job with this jdege. Thank you for all your hard work. Keeping my eyes open and fingers crossed for Monday!

[JimRed]

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).

To defend one's person by carrying is OK as long as you don't hide it? Sounds like Dodge City.

[Shooter 2.5]

Thanks for the article, jdege.

Nebraska does sound kind of strange. I would think if they were that close, something would have been reported. I guess it missed those other debates.

[Shooter 2.5]

I know that way back when, to hide a gun was somehow devious. Only scoundrels hid them.

I did notice when the debate in New Mexico came up, a lot of ranchers couldn't understand what the big deal of the concealed law was because they could carry open. A lot of the rural areas have that "I got mine" disease.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Just stopped in. Will try to answer tomorrow.

[WorkingClassFilth]

That's great! I believe I'll be seeing you Monday morning at the Capitol.

[broadsword]

Congratulations!

We are winning!

Things have been looking good for the right lately.

You know it's going good when all you hear from the left is complaining.

HAHA!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

From cralri.com = Citizens action league of RI.


CRAL Wins In Court!!
A few months ago CRAL filed a lawsuit against a police chief because he refused to accept an application for a concealed gun permit. Our law says that a police chief "shall issue" a permit to carry a concealed handgun if certian criteria are met.

A Superior Court judge agreed with us and ordered the chief to accept and consider the application! This case established that a police chief can not refuse to fairly consider such applications! This is a giant step toward maiking RI a true shall-issue state! You can read the decision here (PDF 670k).
In response, the police chiefs are demanding that the Legislature change the law!



Bill H6292 will change "shall issue" to "may issue." See the "Action Alerts" link.

[jdege]

The court seems to have ruled that the police have to accept and to consider the application, but the standards of issuance "any proper reason" seem vague.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The people who had applied got their permits. As I recall the RI constitution says simply "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So theoretically, any general reason should be acceptable.

They'll change the law anyway first sneak session they can get.