Talk:Concealed carry in the United States/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Concealed carry in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Statistics

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[49]

Probably important to specify whether this includes non-resident permits issued or not. I don't see the specification in the source but it seems important for the claim. 85.178.74.253 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Count States

This article still classifies 52 states into shall-issue (39), may-issue (9), no permit required (2), and no permit available (2). There are, of course, only 50 states (well, 46 States and 4 Commonwealths, if one wishes to be truly pedantic) in the US. Will someone please correct this? 76.179.187.4 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How much crimes are committed by people with concealed carry permit/license?

I'm curious about how much crimes are committed by people with concealed carry permits. I have read that concealed carry permitters are the safest people to be around with, and the least crimes are caused by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.239.100.23 (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Other weapons

Sorry if this is not the correct place for this, but I believe Alaska is improperly categorized, while Alaska issues Conceal carry permits, it is for the sole purpose of reciprocity in the other states, what I mean to say is this, Alaska issues conceal carry permits, although it has no statewide laws regarding concealing firearms Have no idea how to sign this

Concealed carry covers all weapons, not just guns. Concealed knives and (in some states) collapsible batons also required a concealed carry license. Fuzzy 21:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not everywhere it doesen't. I posess an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licence. It applies to nothing but my handguns. It's like that in some states.... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the states where CCW is only for firearms could be listed, along with those that cover "other weapons". In California, CCW only covers firearms, with many of the other weapons, such as batons and switchblade knives are either prohibited or are restricted with an "occupational license". Smokeybehr 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do cane-swords fit in? The S 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly causes some confusion in this regard. the "permit issue policies" section speaks specifically of firearm regulations, but the part on "unrestricted" states says (quote) "Currently, among U.S. states, only Alaska and Vermont allow the general public to carry a concealed firearm or blade without a permit." does this mean that the section is in fact not speaking specifically about firearms? further up it says (quote) "Depending on state law, it can also apply to concealed carry of illegal knives such as stilettos or switchblades." does this mean I do not need a permit to keep a bowie knife in my jacket? This needs to be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.204.22 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, consult WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not the place to compile every State law on this subject (though the article appears to be heading that way through inclusion of more and more examples). You cannot expect to read this article, which pertains to the U.S. in general, and expect to have learned everything you need to know about concealed weapons law in your state. IN GENERAL, concealed weapons law pertains only to firearms, and seperate statutes exist that define what kind of knife or other blade can be carried legally, how, and where. The most common tenet of state laws concerning blades is that if you are allowed to have that knife while you are in a given place, that knife can be stored on your person in the manner of your choice.

I have a fixed-blade hunting/survival knife on my belt at all times except in schools, airports, and government facilities ('cause I'm just a knife kinda guy). If I am ever stopped by a police officer, I will tell him that I did research on the internet for 3 hours and found nothing that said I could not carry a legal knife on my person (except in schools, airports, government facilities, etc.), and that if I am committing a crime, it is the fault of the NH state government for not providing a reasonably simple way to learn about it's laws.(HumbleHumbert (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.5.130 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. That's why we have experts who charge insane amounts to explain it to us. If Wikipedia could give easy access to written records of major laws, at least, then that would be extremely useful. Ignorance of the law is a defense when you are the one passing the law. With politicians, all one must do is claim to not have known that a certain aspect of a law provided for such and such. You only need to claim ignorance... (Mars0790 (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

District of Columbia

This article says that DC is "shall issue" which is not true. DC does not issue concealed carry permits. The case DC v. Heller had absolutely nothing to do with concealed carry, and concealed carry remains illegal in the District. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wild Claims

Please don't post wild claims here - such as 'research has proved absolutely and beyond reasonable doubt that concealed carry reduces crime rates in all states of the United States' - this kind of sweeping claim destroys what little credibility this article has. Very rare in any science or research of this nature that anything is proved beyond reasonable doubt - that is why democratic debate exists - because of all those inconvenient grey areas. Riversider2008 (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some "wild claims" are supportable. The evidence that widespread legal carry reduces crime is arguable. Some researchers have show a modest correlation, others have found either a very minor correlation or none. And even if we accept that the correlation exists, that doesn't prove causation.

But the logic behind the original opposition to shall-issue laws - that widespread legal carry will cause increased crime, has been definitively disproven. We have a large enough data set to be certain. We have significantly increased the number of citizens who are legally empowered to carry in close to 40 states, and in not a single one of them has this been correlated with an increase in crime.

And while correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does prove lack of causation.

It's important to understand what we do know, and what we don't know, and to be very cautious as we approach the division between the two.

--jdege (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if they are supportable, please do not use such ridiculous language. Research is not about proving things beyond a reasonable doubt, but more about collecting and analyzing observations. The phrase "has proved[sic] absolutely and beyond reasonable doubt" is hyperbole and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It's more the tone that was wrong. They should have written "research has shown..." and stopped there. Mbarbier (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have marked the section "Effects of concealed Weapon Laws on Crime Rates" as non-NPOV as it only contains statement that purport that liberal gun laws lower crime. This is not the concensus in the law enforcement community and does not have authoritative or conclusive evidence to support it. The section is one-sided in its views. Kahn10 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV unless sourced information on the opposing side is being ignored. NPOV does not mean equal time but proportional time, and most of the hard data I've seen on these laws seems to point to them improving crime rates, so it makes sense that most of the information in the article is positive. That being said, I could just not be looking in the right places. If you can find sourced information supporting the opposition, by all means add it. It can only improve the article. Mbarbier (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some. John Donohue and Ian Ayres were among the first to seriously question Lott's work, and the National Research Council followed suit. My impression of the field is that Lott's work is largely considered not credible at this point outside ideologically driven think tanks. Nevertheless, he is a significant voice in the field and merits mention. But The article as presented was significantly one-sided.JoelleJ (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

Regarding the non-neutrality warning in one section. What is our policy regarding a case when the facts themselves aren't neutral, which is the case here? When it's a matter of fact and not opinion that more gun laws are postitively correlated with more crime, should there even be a non-neutrality warning? 63.171.230.113 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of fact, there is some research that indicates a correlation between gun laws and crime and some research that indicate no correlation. As it stands now Wikipedia's posting only represents cherry-pcked research that supports one point of view. Here is an article that more fairly balances the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin 216.57.222.134 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited in viewpoints form both sides of the debate. I have no horse in this particular race, but I do have an academic interest in the subject matter, and I would say that current scholarly consensus is that Lott's work was significantly flawed. Still, he remains one of the important voices in the field, so his work is worth mention, but equally worth mention is the fact that many highly regarded researchers and research institutions find his work to be not credible. JoelleJ (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've twice attempted to alter or remove the quote from Don Kates about the "consensus" among criminological researchers, which I think has no place in this article on one of the following two grounds: 1) Kates (unlike John Lott) is not a commenter in the field so prominent that his views need inclusion. He is but one (of many) with an opinion. 2) The quote gives the (mistaken) impression that this is the consensus in the field. It is not my impression that this is correct. It may be Kates's opinion or characterization of the consensus, but again... I don't see how Kates is prominent enough in the field to merit inclusion. My changes have been reverted both times, so I wanted to take it here to discuss. Fundamentally, this article still suffers from significant NPOV problems and appears to be written almost exclusively from an anti-gun control perspective, with non-notable evidence cherry-picked from friendly literature and genuinely contentious propositions stated as fact or as "consensus." I think this needs to be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There is still a lot of reasonable debate on the subject on both sides, and I think that needs to be more fairly represented in the summary. JoelleJ (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who restored these quotes. I did so for technical reasons, not because of content.

The first time you removed the material, you stated that you were removing material concerning John Lott. The Kates quote followed immediately, leaving the possibility that you had simply removed it by mistake. That possibility was strengthened in that you removed the material, but did not remove the cite, which resulted in the cite being applied to a comment on a study that had nothing to do with the cite in question. I restored the Kates quote so that the cite could be applied to what it was intended to apply to.

The next time, you changed the intro to the quote, to state that this was Kates' personal opinion. That seriously mischaracterizes the material. As I said when I reverted your change, read the paper. Kates is quite explicit that he is not stating a personal opinion, but is, rather, stating an emerging consensus among criminological scholars. This section of his paper includes an extensive quotation by Gary Kleck, who is probably the most respected scholar in this field, who has exactly the same opinion. And in this section, he provides citations to dozens of scientific studies to support his position that this is the consensus among criminologists who are studying this area. Kates may be wrong, but what he is providing is by no means a personal opinion. So I reverted your change.

So, neither of the times that I reverted your changes with respect to the Kates quotation was I doing so because of the content of the quotation itself. I reverted part of your first change because you'd deleted it incompletely, and I reverted your second change because you mischaracterized the nature of the quotation.

As for the content, I disagree with your assessment of Kates with respect to this field. From where I sit he seems to be far more respected than Lott. As for his statements being his "opinion", his opinion seems to be shared by Gary Kleck, and by James Wright and Peter Rossi, for that matter.

There are, IMO, three reasons for removing something from a Wikipedia page. 1, if it's not relevant. 2, if it's duplicative of something already in the page, or 3, if it's incorrect. In thise case, 1 and 2 don't apply. If you want to assert that Kates was wrong as to the consensus among criminologists studying firearms crime, you'll need to provide some actual evidence, beyond your own personal opinion.

--jdege (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, revert isn't the solution to a good-faith change you disagree with. That's not a good way of building consensus. I'm not attached to my attempted wording, but the on that's there doesn't work, either, which is why I tried to change it. Working together is good, man. At any rate, I have read the article and disagree with the assessment that the quote listed is a "summary" of the "consensus" of criminologists. The source itself is an author-injected elaboration on one claim (of four) that the author sees frequently among criminologists. Namely, that gun control laws are hard to enforce. By all means put "gun control laws are hard to enforce" and label at as "consensus." But the quote as stands doesn't really do what it was formerly alleged to do (that is, describe the consensus among criminologists). Other than being in a section of the article labeled "consensus," it doesn't seem to have any relationship to "consensus." There is only one citation in support of the quoted proposition, and it's to and English (not American, and this an Article on the United States) criminologist who appears to have written mostly in the 1970s. I think it's wildly inaccurate to say that that's "consensus." It seems to be a cherry-picked quote not substantially related to the main thesis of the piece and not really related to "consensus" in any way. JoelleJ (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The intent, here, is to express what Kates has written in a concise, and accurate way, preferably through a quotation. Is there some other part of that section that we might quote that you think better summarizes it? Perhaps: "... the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that ... the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal."?

As for the word "consensus", if you have an alternative that does not imply that this is Kates' personal opinion, go for it. But your suggested wording "Don Kates observes" again fundamentally misrepresents what Kates has written. Kates has not observed "Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, ...", he observed that "Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into gun control have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First ...".

In other words, this cannot be stated as if it were an observation about guns, but rather it is an observation about scholars and criminological research.

If you want to provide wording that you think better summarizes the four propositions, go for it. Or if you want to change the word "consensus", fine. But Kates's claim is that the research has forced scholars to accept these four propositions, not simply that the propositions are true. To remove any reference to the criminological researchers is to mischaracterize Kates' position. And that I'll accept only if you provide evidence to the contrary.

--jdege (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So, the claim about criminologists relates to the third proposition--namely, "Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce." Kates goes on from there to editorialize (which is why I characterized it as argument, observation or opinion, rather than summary) why that might be the case. That's the part that's currently being quoted. I have no objection to "Don Kates has observed a consensus among criminologists that "gun laws are innately very difficult to enforce." Or even going on from there to say "Kates believes this is because [the quote]." But the quote selected is Kates's editorial, not the consensus. The article doesn't even present it at as consensus. Rather, the consensus is "gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce." JoelleJ (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kates says he's seen a consensus among criminologists regarding all four proposition, but I think if we're were to pick one as best summarizing them, it'd be the fourth: "[...] the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal." Or, more fully: "First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior -- though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce. [...] Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal."

--jdege (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV policy is quite clear that it is not a license to delete material, whether POV or not. merely dumping kates's comments because you apparently disagree with them isn't a valid action. kates is a respected criminologist - i would refer you to the Don Kates article here on wikipedia as a starting point. you've stated that you don't think kates is prominent enough for inclusion, but your personal opinion of kate's prominence isn't adequate.

My first attempt was at an alteration, which you summarily reverted. I note that reverting good-faith edits is not in line with community standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#When_to_revert It's difficult to come to a consensus when you merely revert a good-faith effort to improve the accuracy and NPOV of an article. JoelleJ (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

i did no such thing. before slinging accusations, please take note of who did what. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. As the comment above was unsigned and the person who reverted my comment has edited this page today, I assumed that it was his. I did not realize it was yours. At any rate, I don't feel reverting was a solution to the conflict, and I think the rhetoric ("slinging accusations"?) is a little overblown here. All I'm trying to do is to make this a better article. JoelleJ (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

part of the reason that there is little commentary opposed to concealed carry is because concealed carry has in practice disproven virtually every gun-control argument that was made against it before it became widespread. frankly, i think this article suffers by not including the wild claims and scare tactics that gun control proponents tendered when florida first proposed concealed carry - 'blood will run in the streets' was a particularly egregious one. i would support inclusion of some of the past claims about concealed carry in order to balance the POV. Anastrophe (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that I didn't delete it at first but rather attempted to reword it to show that it was but one opinion rather than "the consensus" which is how it is being presented. My edit was reverted. I similarly note that reversion of good faith edits is also contrary to wikipedia community guidelines. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#When_to_revert. The opinion presented is not, in fact, "the consensus." My personal opinion of Kates isn't dispositive, it's true, but neither is yours. I think the assertion that there is "little commentary opposed to concealed carry" is factually untrue. See the many, many works challenging the methodological validity of studies that purport to show that concealed carry reduces crime. For the record, my position is neither that concealed carry is bad nor that it's good. I've done some work in the field, and my very strong impression is that the general consensus of the academic community is that the question is still open. As it reads now, the article seems to give the impression that concealed carry reduces crime and that there is no opposition to that proposition. I think this is misleading and contrary to the actual state of affairs. By all means, let's include Kates if he's significant, but I think citing him as "the authority" on what "the consensus" is is misleading when there are so many who disagree. Why not simply state that he has made this argument rather than citing him for the proposition that it's "the consensus"? JoelleJ (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Anastrophe. Kates is a noted expert, and his observations (referenced) are germane to the subject of the wiki article. Trasel (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the section which tone down the conclusory nature or some of the claims and added citations and support to show that reputable opinions are to be found on both sides. Let me know what you think. We do a disservice to the community by presenting the matter as settled or even mostly settled at this point. Evidence is very mixed.JoelleJ (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So, I have no problem with most of the recent edits; however, I don't think the claim that the clear majority of states show an increase for all crime types subsequent to the passage of concealed carry laws needs the qualification "one study found." It's national crime data, not really a study. Interestingly, it's the same data that John Lott relied on himself in determining that concealed carry reduced crime. The reason for this is that the effect of Florida, a large state that experienced a substantial drop, overwhelmed the movement in the opposite direction that was observed in a clear majority of other states. This is one of the reasons that Lott's study has been criticized--if you take Florida out of his equation, the effects pretty much disappear (and Florida is a weird case for a number of reasons beyond getting into now). At any rate, I don't think the claim that a majority of states showed increases in crime following the passage of concealed carry laws needs the qualification that "one study found." It's just data, not a conclusion drawn from data (which is what the "one study" qualification seems to imply). I also think it's weird to have the data about the other states called "one study" when the data about Florida is presented as fact. This seems non-parallel to me. JoelleJ (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

i haven't read the whole article, but the early parts are filled with speculation and opinion - along with statistics - not merely dispassionate raw data. certainly it is a study, and all studies have their predisposition to specific findings. i find the inclusion of such statistics as burglary to be little more than intended to confuse - how on earth would burglary rates be affected by concealed carry - burglary is a crime committed either in unoccupied locations, or via stealth in occupied locations. concealed carry isn't intended to nor can it affect burglary. i'm not bowled-over by their findings. Anastrophe (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure. The article is an argument and not raw data. But this particular claim is data and not argument. In fact, it's an argument about the raw data used by Lott (i.e. the person who came up with the concealed carry = reduced violence argument). The authors merely point out by the terms of Lott's own data that crime actually went up in a "clear majority" of states that passed concealed carry laws. The OVERALL effect measured by Lott was negative mostly due to the disproportionate weight given to Florida, which has a large population had a significant drop in crime. (To demonstrate--imagine you put 30 people on a diet and 1 person loses 100 lbs and everyone else gains 3--the diet would still show that the diet was correlated with weight loss even though most people GAINED weight on it. Whether you want to claim that the diet is effective in causing weight loss is largely, then, a matter of opinion). The study was looking at Lott's data when it pointed out that most states saw an increase in crime, not performing any sort of analysis or calculation. Given Lott's data was the predicate data for the claim that comes before it (the claim currently unqualified by "one study found," it seems inconsistent to flag this as "one study." JoelleJ (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the study discusses burglary because Lott's study (the one cited in this article) discusses it. The article is essentially pointing out the methodological flaws and problems with Lott's article. In general, measuring impacts of ANYTHING on crime is extremely difficult for reasons beyond the scope of this article. Lott purported to have done it, but this article points out the many ways in which his findings were less than ideal. JoelleJ (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm baffled by the recent edits. they are poorly worded, and attempt to interpret Kates's words while throwing in POV commentary. i've reverted the material twice; the only justification proferred is 'see talk' - but this new edit is not discussed. where are you coming up with this rewording? what's the source? Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this for most of a week, now. If you have a preferred wording, offer it. The current quote is from a paragraph of Kates' commentary, not to his statement on what criminologists have been forced by the research to accept. Which makes it a poor choice. And the current intro gives the impression that this is Kates opinion, rather that Kates understanding of the consensus view among criminologists.

If you have a preferred wording, offer it.

--jdege (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

my preferred wording is the status quo. if you have a different quote that you think is more appropriate, that would probably be fine too; garbled reinterpretation of what kates is saying is not desireable. stick with quotes. Anastrophe (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What Kates is saying is that the research has forced criminologists to accept certain propositions to the effect that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime. The current language states that Kates has observed something about gun owners. I think it is essential to express the meaning that the language not be twisted into appearing to be something Kates is saying about guns, or gun owners, or gun control laws, but that Kates is making an observation about crimnologists, and what they believe about the efficacy of gun control laws.

There is a level of indirection in this section of Kates' paper that is lost in the current language, and it should be restored.

As for the specific quote, it should come from the fourth proposition, which is Kates' summary of criminologists' belief, and not from an aside that says nothing about criminologists' beliefs.

What we are trying to summarize is this:

Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior--though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.

It is my belief that an abbreviated form of the last sentence is the best balance between accuracy and brevity:

the [...] conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that [...] the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.

If you have an alternative formulation that better expresses the core idea of what Kates is claiming, provide it.

--jdege (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

i think the problem here is that you're trying too aggressively to abbreviate/summarize this. we don't have length or space constraints here, not like a printed encyclopedia. your final abbreviated form is simply too abbreviated, to the point that it confuses rather than illuminates. the paragraph previous to your summary covering the four propositions is not terribly long, and states the matter reasonably clearly. why not some form of that, properly cited of course? Anastrophe (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

--jdege (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether open or concealed carry? Rationale?

Coming from a country where virtually no one is allowed to carry a gun (except the police and probably some hunters), I've always wondered what the fuss is all about - I mean what is the rationale for/against open/concealed carry? I mean: Why does it matter, what's the rationale? --Soylentyellow (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, there's a huge debate in the U.S. about whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns, and if so, exactly how and where. As you can tell from the article, the laws vary quite a bit from state to state, and sometimes even within states. In many states, anyone can get a license to carry firearms if they qualify -- by not having a criminal record or mental health problems, and by being properly trained. In some states it's more difficult to get a license, and a few states don't allow it at all. For more information, you can also read these articles: Gun politics in the United States, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Gun laws in the United States (by state). — Mudwater^(Talk) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Suppose I was in favour of guns (suppose I was the NRA) would I be in favour of concealed carry or in favour of open carry or in favour of both? Why?

What are the arguments for and against concealed carry as well as for and against open carry? I imagine a gun in a handbag/purse is more stylish than a gun in an outside holster on your business attire, but fashion/style surely isn't the reason for the debate...so what is?

Isn't this issue totally separate from whether to have guns at all or not? Or whether to control their purchase or not? (gun control)--Soylentyellow (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinions about these matters vary quite a bit, so the answers depend on whom you're asking. The Gun politics in the United States article is a good overview of the general discussion. But to give a brief answer about concealed carry versus open carry, it's generally thought that with concealed carry, you will not be considered to be threatening or intimidating anyone, since no one can tell if you're armed or not. Open carry is sometimes allowed also, most often in the more rural areas of the U.S., where firearm ownership is very common and there is less criminal activity. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To give a little bit about the advantages of open carry as well, open carry, where allowed, allows for a faster draw (drawing from concealment generally means having to untuck a shirt or dig the gun out of a pocket), it's more comfortable in general, particularly in warmer climates, and it provides a visual deterrent to would-be robbers, rapists, etc. Retention (keeping possession of the gun when someone thinks they can take it) does become an issue, as does unsettling the general public.

On the other hand, concealed carry has the benefit of criminals not knowing who is armed and who is not, therefore criminals can't simply shift their targets to obviously unarmed people since few would be obviously unarmed. This would then limit the number of people a criminal is willing to target and in theory put many criminals out of business.Crazypower (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question about which the NRA would favor, that's kind of a trick question; the NRA has always been a voice more for hunters and sportsmen than for self-defense advocates; they do quite a bit of both, but they're lobbyists; their ability to persuade lawmakers to pass favorable laws depends on the common sense of their argument, and any argument for self-defense will on its face be less appealing than an argument in favor of sporting use. Hunters are out in the middle of nowhere aiming at animals; a person carrying a pistol in public anticipates someday needing it to intentionally injure or kill another human, in order to protect themselves. The NRA advocates for the second purpose, but is willing to compromise; it has been at the forefront of getting concealed-carry laws passed, but has not been as big a voice for open carry, so just from its public voice it would be more of a concealed-carry advocate.

The issue is seperate from, but closely related to, the argument over whether to have guns at all. It's a spectrum; the real question at the root of the argument is, what place do guns have in a civilized society? Guns have many purposes, generally faling into three categories; sport, self-defense, and criminal activity. Those in favor of gun control generally fear the last use, and want to control or ban the sale and use of types of guns suitable for that purpose, namely handguns and semi-automatic rifles. However, those against gun control make the famous argument; outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws; that's why they are a threat to society. Therefore, laws, which apply only to the law-abiding, serve only to disarm those people, making them even less likely to be able to defend themselves against a criminal. This applies both to owning and to carrying weapons; If you can own a gun for "sporting" purposes (target shooting, hunting) but can't carry it with you for self-defense, is the right to keep and bear arms being infringed? That's really what it boils down to; the RKBA is by no means absolute (convicted felons cannot and should not own guns), but at what point does it stop being a restriction for the good of society and start becoming an infringement that harms it? Liko81 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was using the NRA as a shorthand for "as pro gun as it gets". Did I get this right: If someone legally owns a gun but concealed carry is illegal in a certain jurisdiction, does that automatically mean that open carry would be automatically legal? May the reverse be true someplace else too? (i.e. open carry is legal but concealed carry is not)

I ask because for example the article Students_for_Concealed_Carry_on_Campus says that "to carry concealed handguns on college campuses" is usually illegal. Does that mean that the students would be allowed to carry their gun openly to class? (provided they may do that outside of the school area too, have the necessary permit if necessary etc)--Soylentyellow (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. In most states, open and concealed carry in public places are both legal; sometimes OC requires a license, usually the same license that permits concealed carry. CC almost always requires a license, and only two states allow CC without one. Texas allows concealed carry but not open carry, and Wisconsin allows open but not concealed carry. Illinois only allows open carry, and only in rural areas. The District of Columbia does not allow carry of any kind, and neither does New York City or Chicago, and some states, though they may have provisions for concealed carry licensing, are so restrictive that no average citizen can get one. In addition, there are places in "permissive" states where no carry is legal; college campuses are almost universally "gun free", which is what the SCCC is trying to change in the wake of Virginia Tech, NIU and other campus shootings. Again, criminals don't obey the law, a sign obviously didn't keep Cho from taking a handgun to campus, and the police didn't respond until after the damage was done. The SCCC is pushing for concealed carry because that is the more socially acceptable method of carry; people aren't frightened by a gun they can't see. Liko81 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Though they're common whipping boys in anti-gun rhetoric, the NRA is hardly "as pro-gun as it gets". As far as their actual platform is concerned, they mainly want to head off additional restrictions on guns and get the "convicted felons can't ever own guns" restriction changed to "_violent_ convicted felons can't own guns". Plenty of US organizations want to actually roll back recent gun restrictions or extend some guarantees to anti-gun states; the NRA's mostly concerned with damage control. They're just synonymous with gun advocacy because they're so high-profile.

To answer your question, though, it varies by state. In some states, concealed carry permits are shall-issue, while open carry is expressly forbidden. In my neighboring state of Pennsylvania, concealed carry permits are shall-issue, but open carry is completely unregulated (you have to be pegally qualified to own the gun, of course). The two philosophies, basically, are "a gentleman conceals his weapons so as not to intimidate anybody", and "criminals hide their weapons because they intend to misuse them--if you carry openly, you obviously have nothing to hide". I don't disapprove of people who open-carry, but my personal opinion is definitely closer to the former. ;) Elmo iscariot (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that after all of these responses, nobody answered the actual question. The answer is simple - Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Consitutional right, and it has always recognized as such by the majority of the population, and until the Kansas Supreme Court invented this "collective rights" nonsense in 1910, it was always recognized as such by the federal government and by the States. So when states started passing laws against people carrying guns, they needed some excuse to explain why this particular law didn't infringe on an individual's right to carry. Back in the 1870's, when these laws were being passed, the popular excuse was that the law only outlawed concealed carry, and since someone could still carry openly (as any person with honest intent would), it didn't violate the individual's Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The result is that in a fair number of states, the laws as written outlaw only concealed carry, and open carry is theoretically legal. And we still have courts ruling that restrictive firearms laws are constitutionally sound, because open carry remains legal, even though anyone attempting to open carry can be expected to be arrested for "disturbing the peace".

--jdege (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

.gif on front page

Is this file really appropriate to use in conjunction with this article? The source of the file appears to be a personal website of questionable reliability. I have no idea if the people running the site are correct or not, but the site seems to be a personal website put up by someone with a non-neutral point of view, both of which seem to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources I mean no disrespect to the author of the website, who may have all the information exactly correct. It just doesn't seem to be the kind of reliable source that should be featured so prominently on the page.

Is there something more authoritative that can be used instead? JoelleJ (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

do you have a specific dispute as to the reliability of the data the graphic is illustrating? the original graphic source page lists the sources of the data. it's not a primary source, it is created from other reliable sources. if you can show that it misrepresents the information, then by all means it has no place here. but if it doesn't misrepresent the information, what is the problem? it's not being presented as a source in the article, it's merely an illustration. WP:V doesn't really apply, since it's not making any specific claim not already sourced in the article. the only shortcoming i can see is that it's slightly out of date. considering some of the material in the article references information that's decades old, that's hardly a damning criticism. Anastrophe (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The blog gun-nuttery.com doesn't look like a WP:RS to me. Sourcing like this makes Wikipedia a laughing stock, harming the credibility of the entire encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

it's neither being presented as a source, nor being used as a source. your premise is faulty, your conclusion is equally faulty. Anastrophe (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The GIF is a graphical representation of data from other sources. The relevant question is whether it accurately reflects those sources, or whether those sources are unreliable.

--jdege (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of dead links to permit process articles

I just removed a list of links to articles for each state's permit process, none of which exist. I have no objection to the creation of such articles if someone is interested in following through with that work, only to the creation of dead links and the massive block of red text which resulted in this case. MJKazin (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Federal Law" section stub, citing Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

I am reverting this section, in agreement with another editor, who also did a revert. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) was a District court of appeals case from 112 years ago, that only mentioned concealed firearms in passing. The fact is that the Federal courts have mainly been silent on concealed carry, preferring to have the states set their own standards, under their own jurisprudence. Giving this case center stage in a new section under a new top-level header is absurd undue weight, and is hence a violation of wiki policy. If this case is mentioned in this article at all, it should be in a sub-section and IN CONTEXT, mentioning that it was not a Supreme Court decision, and that it was NOT primarily a firearms-related case. Trasel (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Including a section on Federal law is hardly undue weight. Further, I believe that the current stare decisis federal court precedence in federal jurisdictions is the Baldwin case, therefore this case deserves coverage. Also, this article is about concealed carry in the United States, and the legal precedence under federal law which governs federal jurisdictions in the United States seem very much on topic for this article. Also, there is a main dichotomy, State Law versus Federal Law which justifies a sectional division in this article with each deserving parallel coverage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are all fair points. But a new section on Federal Law on concealed carry should be balanced and show proper context. The draft stub had neither. Feel free to draft a new summary on the topic. But obviously, it need to mention that the Federal courts have largely been mute and delegative to the states on concealed carry. There just isn't a large body of case law at the Federal level. (UCMJ cases, not withstanding.) Trasel (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the UCLA School of Law publication which you deleted[1] (with a misleading edit summary), as recent as 2008 the federal court has ruled that concealed carry laws do not infringe the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Federal law versus federal laws

I am pretty sure that the correct grammar for discussing a body of law is singular. As with Federal law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

how do I add a new setcion

why cant we put in FACTS of people who used concealed carry to be able to murder a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii information is wrong

After researching this, the article may need adjusted for Hawaii as I found multiple sources stating that Hawaii is a "May Issue" state that not only issues CWP but both recognizes other states and is recognized by other states. I am including sources here for research purposes -

http://www.usacarry.com/hawaii_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

http://www.lcav.org/states/hawaii.asp#carryingconcealedweapons

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm

Alexkraegen (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Hawaii has a "May Issue" law, but chooses to issue very rarely. Your sources don't contradict that.

--jdege (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

jdege - Did you review the article, I don't see anything to back up your statement.

Directly from the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#No-issue "Hawaii is also a no-issue state."

Also the grid to the right of the article clearly identifies Hawaii as a "No-Issue" state. That information is wrong.

Alexkraegen (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a conflict: The .gif map shows Hawaii in yellow (which seems to be correct). 75.196.99.239 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

USACarry.com External Link

I have tried adding USACarry.com to the external links section but it is being removed just because it has forums. This site has a lot more information pertaining to this exact subject other than just forums. See some of the links below.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_ccw_instructors_by_state.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_gun_ranges_by_state.html

It is even used on this talk page to verify some information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States - Under Hawaii Information is wrong. --Kahman (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone responding to this but respond to other items on this page? Kahman (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When I check the forum at USACarry.org I see that you are a member of that group. Checking your contribution history at Wikipedia, I see that you have a history of inserting links in Wikipedia pointing to your group spanning several years. This may be viewed as WP:WPSPAM. Please review and follow the conflict of interest guidelines at Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a member because I am active in the concealed carry community. I am also a member of the NRA which is linked on the site and many other online gun forums. But I am not trying to add every site I am a member of, only a site that has valid information pertaining to this article on wikipedia. Why is the site used to validate information on the wikipedia talk pages but not linked to in the external links??? Kahman (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Content

On the whole, the information on this page is pretty good, although it appears to be missing some key items (i.e., discussion of concealed carry laws by Justice Scalia in the D.C. v. Heller decision, the role of the NRA and gun lobby in enacting CCW laws from 1980-2000 and then liberalizing them in the 21st century, specific state-by-state requirements for CCW training, the role of Sen. Coburn in allowing concealed handguns in National Parks, etc.). There's also a bit of content that is not relevant to the topic at hand (i.e., the Centerwall and Kates studies).

More than anything, though, this article would benefit from a simple reorganization. There is a lot of redundant content here (i.e., restating state law several times) and content that seems to be under the wrong header (i.e., Court Rulings not falling under Legal Issues).

A more streamlined organization might look something like this:

INTRO, FEDERAL LAW, STATE LAW (Permitting Policies, Reciprocity, Training Requirements, Laws Regarding Carry in Vehicles), LEGAL ISSUES (Court Rulings, Legal Liability Issues), RESEARCH AND STATISTICS, POLITICS (Support, Opposition) Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The general disorganization of this article has been bothering me too, and I agree that it could be improved through some trimming out the repetitive issues and reorganization in more easily understood section titles like you propose. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The categories you propose are logical and will help make this topic easier to navigate. --PFS (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just completed the reorganization as described above and took out quite a bit of redundant (or irrelevant) content. Hopefully this will be more streamlined, on topic, and easy to read. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive Conflict of Interest

It is pretty hilariously Ironic that SaltyBoater, who is in an editing collusion with ForwardThinkers (see their respective editing histories and Talk page chatter) on this and other RKBA articles is crying foul on COI. Do the other editors realize that ForwardThinkers is the NEW EDITING NAME of a full-time paid lobbyist for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV)--a gun control group? In fact, "CSGV "was his old editing sign-in name. Talk about conflict of interest! ForwardThinkers has been repeatedly warned in the past not to make substantive edits to gun rights pages by other editors and admins, yet he persists in doing so. In fact, he just totally re-organized this page, injecting his meddlesome POV.[2] This sort of meddling by paid lobyists and their cronies is POISONING wikipedia, and compromising its neutrality Something is rotten in Denmark, and some Admins should be told about it.173.84.198.107 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as lobbyists stick the rules of Wiki, I don't see why there is a conflict of interest. We don't know what anyone's day job is on Wiki. That's the beauty of the rules - as long as we stick to them, we can work towards a balanced approach to any given topic. In this case, the section has been simply reorganized and consolidated, which is consistent with Wiki guidelines on what makes a good article. I don't see the problem.--PFS (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

problems with article

I just added some research on public opinion about carrying concealed. I also made some small edits to better characterize the research on concealed carry. I'm not sure how to handle the controversy around John Lott's work on this topic. There have been many questions raised about how it was done, that he apparently "lost" his data set when asked to produce it so others could analyze it, and that he posed as another person on a blog and praised his own work, etc. All important bits of information but I will have to see what verification I can find about it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though the question that comes to my mind is why this is framed as a guns versus crime trade off. (As with the John Lott "study", I don't think it meets WP:V standards here.) Objectively, after looking at the sourcing, I see that the two major POV camps view this though different prisms. One side sees it as a society against crime issue, the other side sees it as a societal gun violence issue. Based on gun violence statistics, stranger crime is a minor part relative to 'non-crime' suicide and domestic gun violence (between people known to each other/family/neighbors). The emphasis on the crime framing viewpoint is a major WP:UNDUE policy violation. We should rewrite to deal with the two major framing viewpoints equally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. The Research section is currently framed too narrowly to accommodate all the types of research within the subheading. I suggest renaming it "Research on Concealed Carrying of Weapons." BTW - I deleted a few subjective phrases (one of which I wrote then decided wasn't fair!) and just left the studies to speak for themselves. --PFS (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, for instance the article section titled: "Research on the Efficacy of Concealed Carry". This violates WP:NPOV because it frames the issue as "crime control". When a neutral point of view would also give coverage to the topic of Concealed Carry firearms and other types of gun violence beyond fighting crime. Look at the sourcing, for instance Firearms and Violence ISBN 9780309091244, the David Hemenway studies, etc.. This topic pertains not just the firearms vs crime subset of the issue that one side of the POV seeks to frame. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant Lott & Mustard Right-To-Carry (RTC) dataset was lost in a harddrive crash in the summer of 1997, after the publication of the L-M article but before the publication of Lott's book. It was rebuilt in part from David Mustard's backups and hardcopy. Lott has reproduced his dataset, provided it publicly and it has been analysed by others: over 24 papers have been published using the Lott & Mustard RTC dataset including the critical Ayres & Donohue papers. The NAS NRC panel "Firearms and Violence: A Policy Review" NAP 2005 acknowledged the Lott & Mustard RTC dataset they used was a reconstruction. Lott has published in other areas and has consistently released his data sets and math for other scholars, years before it was a requirement of the American Economic Association publications.

On a different issue, frequency of Defensive Gun Use (DGU), both Lott (1997) and Peter D. Hart Research Associates (1981) have reported losing data sets on telephone surveys after publishing the results, both cases without computer backup or hard copy on the survey data itself. The loss of the DGU dataset has nothing to do with the validity of the RTC study. Ted Goertzel claims that Lott & Mustard and Ayres & Donohue are all barking up the wrong tree: in his opinion, you can't prove causal relationships with econometric regression period. You can say you don't want to believe in RTC or in econometric regression as a reserach tool, or in using internet pseudonyms to promote a POV, but you cannot say that Lott did not produce (or reproduce) his RTC data for others to analyse. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

== Removed Probable Vandalism ==

There was a homo-issue section. Appeared to be pretty clear vandalism. I removed. Eh1537 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Arizona laws and additional info

Minor edit in works - AZ laws take effect 91 days after bill is either signed or invoked without signature, not 90.... Also will add clarification as to historical carry laws here (open carry has been legal except for "restricted areas" - Convenience stores, bars, parks, etc.) BruceWiley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

The broader topic of civilian weapon laws in general

I noticed that "concealed weapon" and "weapon possession" redirect to this article. I feel this is too specific and that an article on the general criminal laws about possession and/or carrying concealed weapons (especially things other than handguns) is needed. It especially needs to broaden out into other parts of the world. I already have a sandbox article started. What do you all think? And please if you'd like to participate in building the article, let me know.Legitimus (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership and concealed carry of handguns for foreigners

Even after a longish Google research I could not find any unambiguous information about the situation for non-US citizens. Say, how is the situation for students or scientists from other countries who have a limited position in a CC-friendly state for a couple of years? Is the right to possess and/or even to carry a handgun restricted to US citizens in general (i.e. by federal law)? Or do different US states have different laws for foreigners? All gun-law pages seem to address US citizens only.--SiriusB (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition: The article states that "individuals who have renounced their United States citizenship" (is voluntarily renouncing ones US citizenship worse in relation to gun-law than just being a citizen or another country?) as well as illegal aliens cannot obtain a CCW permit or are not even allowed to possess guns (is this by federal law, and thus valid independently from states law?). But it does not tell anything about law-abiding aliens who are living temporarily or permanently in the U.S., but still have another, maybe German, citizenship. Since there seems to be no easily achievable information about this issue, but on the other hand may be relevant to a huge number of foreign people living in the U.S., this should definitively be addressed in either this or a more general article.--89.0.64.184 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Crime deterrence

Propaganda for and against gun laws and the ownership of guns seems to permeate every discussion on the subject. Most people are poorly informed about things they speak very loudly about, perhaps in an attempt to compensate for their lack of knowledge they raise the tone. On this subject however, I am informed but will admit as a gun owner I am going to view things through a pro-carry POV. The stats in the article clearly lean toward anti-gun sentiment. There is no mention about the non-lethal use of firearms in self defense. Although difficult to quantify and study there are thousands of anecdotal cases where crimes were stopped when the would-be victim showed their gun. Anyone who reads gun literature is quite familiar with these references. You must ask yourself, why do police carry guns? Are they there to murder people? Of course not, they are there for SELF defense of the officer. Nor does an officer fire his weapon every time it is drawn. The mere presence of a gun deters much crime or stops it in its tracks. Police, no matter how good they are cannot protect us all nor are they under any legal obligation to do so. In other words a policeman is not OBLIGATED to save your life. It would also be a rare circumstance that you were being assaulted with the police in such proximity as to be able to defend you. Mugging, car-jacking, "random violence" home break in crimes will be long over before the police can get there. It is your right and your duty to protect yourself.

The position that the increased presence of legally owned and carried guns increases crime is not tenable. There is little or no REAL evidence that crime rates go up when law abiding citizens carry firearms. Why would they? Does owning a gun make you a murderer? Of course not, and neither does not owning a gun preclude you from the act of murder. There are many easily executed methods of injuring or killing someone without a gun. The final paragraph of the article suggests that "people" feel less safe when law abiding citizens legally carry guns in their communities. I believe this statement to be untruthful. What people are these? People who have no understanding about guns and the normal people who own them will likely assume that Hollywood accurately describes people with guns as psycho criminals, frightened hysterical women who shoot family members on accident, robots both evil and benign, and superhuman vigilantes. Also, the murder stats described give no relationship to the states they were committed in. I think it would be a compelling argument to see that the states with the "loosest" gun laws (Vermont, Alaska) have the highest murder rates per capita. Conversely, the states with the strictest gun laws should have the lowest murder rates per capita. I don't think you will find this to be the case though. Look it up, I think you will be amused by your findings. Crime is not caused by legal gun ownership. Nor would I say that crime is caused by illegal gun ownership. Criminals certainly use guns to meet their ends but the criminals would still exist if guns did not. There should be no confusion between the right to not own a gun or to own a gun. Both are individual choices protected under the Constitution.

"The most violent element in society is ignorance."

-Emma Goldman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yholmes (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A standard pro-gun rant ! You say, "Does owning a gun make you a murderer?" I suggest that carrying a gun makes it extremely easy for you to instantly become a murderer ! Just get drunk, or get angry (or both), and you have the means right there in your hand ! Does any state even carry out a test for mental stability before issuing a gun licence ?

Gun possession (and obviously carrying) enables any "law-abiding citizen" to become a murderer in one second flat.

So tell me, what would happen to US murder rates if ordinary citizens had no guns ?

(This little rant is from England.)Darkman101 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion group. If it isn't a discussion of how to improve the page, it doesn't belong here. jdege (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Given the specific concealed carry laws, am I to assume that if a person has a permit to own a gun he can carry it in a non-concealed fashion, ie in his hand or in a holster not covered by a jacket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.41 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on the state. In some, yes. In others, no. And, in most states, no permit is required even to own a gun. Likewise, no permit is required in 3 states to carry a concealed weapon. And, in some states, having a concealed carry permit doesn't grant open carry, either. It all depends on the state. For more on this, check out Open carry in the United States. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There are only a few states that require licensing to own a firearm. Off the top of my head, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Hawaii. In the other 45+/-, no license is required to own.

Back in the 19th century, when laws began to be passed outlawing carrying of certain weapons, they were challenged on constitutional grounds. A number of state courts found that restrictions on concealed carry were not violations of the right to keep and bear arms, so long as open carry remained a legal option. The result of that is that in roughly half of states, open carry remained at least theoretically legal, even while concealed carry was illegal.

So the modern "concealed carry" movement involves two sorts of laws, making it legal to carry concealed, in states in which open carry had always been legal, and making it legal to carry at all, in states in which both open and concealed carry were illegal.

The long duration over which these laws were passed has led to some incongruous situations. When Virginia passed their concealed carry permit law, they made it illegal to carry in a bar. But the old open-carry law had no such restriction. So someone who had a carry permit, and was carrying concealed, was required to expose their gun when they went into a bar.

Wisconsin is probably the last state left with laws that match the status quo as of 30 years ago, before the growth of the modern carry movement. Wisconsin does not issue permits, so concealed carry is illegal under all circumstances. But the state Constitution has a strong RKBA provision, and the state courts have repeatedly held that open carry is legal. Despite that, individuals who are seen carrying openly have been repeatedly been arrested and charged with various bullshit charges - "disturbing the peace", etc.

jdege (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gun Free School Zones Act

[background]*User:MoonOwl2010 has tried several times to make a significant edit, which is disputed and I'd should be discussed here before it either happens or doesn't.

MoonOwl wants to change the section GFSZA which wasn't disputed in discussion or edits previously ("diff")

to the edit to include this [3].

I've suggested this compromise: [4]. However, MoonOwl does not agree so now it is in dispute. A discussion began on my talk space this morning, which I have transferred to this page for discussion in this section. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

- While this edit is in dispute, I'm going to revert it until we settle it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiphi (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You write that some States exempt people with out of State permits from the Federal GFSZA. You are thinking of exemptions for State GFSZA's in places that have them such as California and Texas. As the Federal law is currently written, there is no way for a State to provide an exception to an out-of-State permit holder unless they do an individual background check of the individual and issue them a non-resident permit. The only State in the country which has made any special attempt at exempting a person from Federal GFSZA 1995 is Montana. States don't have the authority to exempt someone from Federal Law. The law has an exception which is triggered under certain circumstances, this is different from the State exempting a person. The State never exempts a person, sometimes a person is exempt as the result of meeting federal requirements through a State permit process. I have researched this law extensively for several years and have spoken with several U.S. Senators regarding it. My interpretation is correct. There is a very lengthy discussion on the subject here http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/7837-concealed-carry-reciprocity-currently-banned-under-federal-law-important.html MoonOwl2010 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some states do specifically exempt both holders of permits issued under their authority and holders of other states' permits which they recognize, applying state law uniformly to both groups. In its letter BATFE disputes the legal standing of state governments to exempt permit holders in the way that the texts of the laws declare. BATFE is not a legislative body, but has published its interpretation of laws in a legal advisory. BATFE is relevant to gun politics so we can certainly include its published opinion in the article. It doesn't change the facts that the GSFZA is written the way it's written, or that that state legislatures have also made laws. -[User:Digiphi|Digiphi] ([user talk:Digiphi|Talk]) 18:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite the State laws that specifically address the Federal GFSA? As far as I know, Montana is the only one that declared all citizens to be "licensed" by the State for GFSZA purposes. Because of the supremacy clause in the US Constitution, States can't override Federal law. Take Medical Marijuana in California for example. The State of California can make it legal to possess marijuana under State law, but DEA is still free to arrest everybody for violating Federal Law. Please read the discussion at USA carry, we would value your input. If you read the Federal GFSZA law carefully, you see that the States aren't given authority to exempt a person. A person is only exempt if they meet one of the requirements to be exempt. Many people argue that if you have a Missouri CCW and you travel to Texas you are "licensed by Texas." ATF disagrees with this point, but even if we assume the federal judge agrees you are "licensed" you still don't get the exception unless the law enforcement authorities of the State you are visiting conducted a background check... and not only that they conducted the check, but the law of the State must also REQUIRE them to conduct the check before issuing the "license." So in a State that recognizes all out of State permits, there is absolutely no way a person can argue that the law of the State required, and the authorities performed an individual background check before issuing the "license" to carry. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To begin, it doesn't matter what Senators have told you or how much research you've down and it never will for the purposes of WP. This isn't because you're a bad person or because I have a low opinion of your research skills (I don't). It's because we have a policy on that topic, see WP:NOR. Although a tricky issue normally, in this case primary sources such as the GFSZA and the letter from BATFE are appropriate because they are relevant to the topic and there's no other appropriate item. The published opinion of BATFE may be reported in the article, but not the conclusions you've drawn from your research or that of anyone else. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say, "Some states also exempt holders of out-of-state permits which they recognize in accordance with reciprocity agreements." Will you please cite the State laws that you claim specifically exempt out-of-State permit holders from Federal GFSZA, as well as where the authority of a State to trump Federal Law comes from. You say I am drawing conclusions, I believe I'm stating what the text of the law says, which the ATF letter confirms. Where are you drawing the conclusions that there are other exemptions which are not stated within the text of the law? The line I quoted from your edit is really the only part of it I have an issue with. I have an issue with it because I have been unable to find any State law relating to Federal GFSZA and CCW permit reciprocity, and I believe the way that line is worded would wrongly give readers the impression that they are protected from the Federal law while carrying in a reciprocal-State, when they are in fact not, as evidenced by the BATFE letter. Can we compromise and remove that line?MoonOwl2010 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few hours to research the states' statutes sites and I'll pull exact laws and links. In the meantime, consider the case of states that specifically exempt the permit holders from the school the school zone hassle, and also have language in their sections addressing reciprocity to the tune of "permits recognized" or "permits honored" being treated the same as state-issued permits and their holders subject to the same restrictions and privileges. Now, the GFSZA is written the way it's written, and the state laws are written the way they are written. You are correct, neither changes the other. However, as for the letter, BATFE published a legal advisory including its opinion, which is obviously that States do not have the legal standing to make the exemptions that some do in their statutes. BATFE does not make policy nor is it a court. It is a notable organization relevant to firearms laws, and has a place in the article the same as an Attorney General opinion letter, which we'd also present in the article as the opinion of a notable source, but not the official notice of people's rights. A solution would might be to have the sentence be: ...in a letter, BATFE advised that it would recommend charges to federal prosecutors for [out-of-state holders etc.] for violating the GFSZA, and asserts that states which exempt [out-of-state, etc.] do not have the legal standing to grant such exemptions.

Now, I will research. -Digiphi (Talk) 14:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what you come up with. Several States exempt permit holders from State laws enacting gun-free zones at the State level, but that is an entirely different thing. Are you sure that is not what you've been thinking of? Also, a lot of readers don't understand the dual-sovereignty that exists in the United States and have the mistaken idea that if a State says they can do something, like have a gun in a school zone, or possess "medical marijuana" that it is legal. The Federal GFSZA should have been written to allow for permit reciprocity, but when it was written only a few States had CCW, and reciprocity was very limited. The fact is, until amended, it does not allow for reciprocity, and the article needs to be written such that readers not familiar with all the legal intricacies of dual-sovereignty don't get the mistaken idea that it is safe to violate Federal Law because a State said so. I'm pretty sure you understand the legal confusion that the current Federal GFSZA presents. I'll be surprised if you find the State laws that "say" they exempt a person from Federal GFSZA, because I've been looking for years. Montana is the only one, and it doesn't specifically address reciprocity. Personally, I think talking about State-level exemptions is extraneous information, because any State-level exemptions are nothing more than a political statement by the State, and have no legal standing. I don't see the value of confusing readers... if we include anything in the article about State-level exemptions to the Federal GFSZA, it needs to be very clear that these State-level exemptions would not stand up in court and are nothing more than the State speaking out against the Federal Government. I like your new idea for an edit, except for the part talking about State-level exemptions which I don't think exist, possibly with the exception of Montana. If you're able to successfully cite a bunch of State laws similar to that of Montana's attempting to exempt people from the Federal GFSZA, then I don't have any issue talking about them in the article... as long as readers understand that such State-level exemptions are meaningless when they are facing Federal Charges in a Federal court. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I'm between work right now, but real quickly about the main point here is: "Are you sure that is not what you've been thinking of?. Also, a lot of readers don't understand the dual-sovereignty that exists in the United States and have the mistaken idea that if a State says they can do something, like have a gun in a school zone..." Dead-on! That is exactly what I'm thinking of: State laws. BATFE has the opinion, and you concur, that states do not have the legal standing to sanction the carry inside, near, or around schools notwithstanding the provisions in the GSFZA. Those are opinions and we can, and absolutely should include them—BATFE, probably not an off-the-record statement by a senator, but you get my point—in the article. If you're like me and have been thinking (I'll bet you have) Lopez this whole discussion, that's good. Remember that Lopez did not address the issue of states' sanctioning an activity. And no case with those parameters has been tested in the Supreme Court-yet!. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has not revisited the issue since United States v Lopez, however several US Courts of Appeals have revisited the issue since the law was amended to get around the Lopez ruling and have upheld the law as being legal. In United States v Dorsey (2005) the changes Congress made following the Lopez decision were specifically reviewed by an Appellate court, and they ruled the changes were legal. Now that we agree that a person is not exempt from the Federal GFSZA unless they have a carry permit physically issued by the State they are driving through, can we please change the Wikipedia articles to reflect that? All the stuff about State-level exemptions to the Federal GFSZA needs to stay out, because there are no State-level exemptions. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to leave you hanging again. We're in mediation on another article and I can't fight this battle at this time. I have no reservations about it going back to your change for the time being. You should do that, or I'll do it if you're away. I feel like it's not ideal, but nobody's going to suffer legally from reading it and being overcautious. So it's not the end of the world for me. Thank you for your comments. I hope you'll continue the discussion in a few days or so when I'll be done with this other stuff.

P.S.: I don't have the time to get into this now either, but I want to leave just one point about another Federal laws contribution you've made. The USACE passage. I followed that piece of policy and its debate, its passage and its brief peril closely. I'm dug-in on one side of the gun control-gun rights debate as you've probably gathered. I read the notice and it applies to the land that constitutes the park, that the Park Service controls, pretty much everything but buildings. Any land the NPS controls and that it officially administers as park space is subject to the rules. That includes any land that the NPS leases and that also meets the standards described in the previous sentence, even USACE wetlands concerns. That's it. It's all I wanted to say about it. Whenever I'm back around, if you're still around and want to discuss it, we will. See you. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No issue to Shall issue

Why is No Issue listed first and then the article proceeds from there? It makes more sense to start the listing from least restrictive to most restrictive given the article is about concealed carry and not restricting concealed carry. It strikes me that listing out where you CAN do it first makes more sense than listing where you CAN'TLepeu1999 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Concealed carry

For some reason or other the conceal carry article redirects to the concealed carry in the US article. I therefore write my comments to the concealed carry article here. Luredreier (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

Again in Canada, for wilderness protection, individuals may receive limited licenses to permit open carry called ATC-2, but only within specific highly restrictive uninhabited areas. There must be sufficient reason to believe the life of the individual could be endangered if not permitted to carry, due to bear or other wildlife activity, and additionally that they would not be feasibly able to carry a long arm Non-restricted Firearm due to other equipment. In practice, the policy toward carrying while hunting has been a complete ban since 1979. CFO staff have been variously quoted as stating "If you can shoot it with a rifle, you can finish it with a rifle." On these grounds, the known number of ATCs issued in any Province has remained very low.

I fail to see how most of this is relevant to the concealed carry policy in it self as this text is about non-concealed carry of weapons. Luredreier (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirected talk?

Is there any particular reason for why the concealed carry articles talk page redirects here instead of having it's own talk page, or possibly this one redirecting to the concealed carry article? After all, the US is only a small part of the universe, just like earth is, and neither is in the center. Luredreier (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My guess is some kind of coding error. Feel free to fix it.Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Sperril (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome 76.18.79.175

Welcome to Wikipedia and this somewhat controversial subject. Please register as a Wikipedian, which enhances communication and the effectiveness of the system.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area. Keep the Five pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view. Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type Ratagonia (talk), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use Ratagonia (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC). Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and guidelines. Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun! If you have any questions, see the help pages, or ask a question at the village pump or ask on any article's Talk Page, like this one, (if you actually get here)!

Again, welcome, and good luck! Ratagonia (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

a recurrent meme

Quote: "Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online."

A quick internet check shows that "only requires applicants to view a video" is a talking point at venues like HuffingtonPost.com and DemocraticUnderground.com on opposition to right-to-carry laws.

I am a resident of Tennessee (TN) with a carry permit. Gun control groups and newspaper editorials opposed to the TN carry permit law claimed that to get a permit all you had to do was watch a 45 minute video. To become certified by a firearms instructor as eligible for a permit, I was required to take two 4 hour classes, one on the laws on self defense (which included a video from the state attorney general explaining current application of self defense laws in court cases) and another on gun safety (which included an NRA video on gun safety featuring Lee Purcell and Michael Gross). Most of the class time was the state-certified firearms instructor demonstrating various points with training aids. To complete certification you had to achieve passing scores on written exams (ending with firing a qualifying score at the firing range with a handgun of your choice). So much for the talking point "only requires applicants to view a video". I believe the opponents of the THCP law deliberately misrepresented the training certification requirements and would do the same with regard to shall-issue right-to-carry laws anywhere. Caveat lector.

The key to much opposition to shall-issue permits is not that applicants "only have to watch a video" (in Tennessee it was two videos as part of eight hours of class); the opposition is that the right-to-carry is treated like driver's license: if you meet objective standards and pass the tests, issuance of the license is not based on the licensing official's personal feelings on cars or driving or you personally: issuance is based on law administered under standards of equal justice and due process.

Opponents of shall-issue right-to-carry have no problem with discretionary privilege-to-carry laws, where permits were granted or denied based often on the whim of the judge or sheriff or police chief signing off on the permit with minimal or no training requirements for the permit applicant. A co-worker who lived in Virginia under the old discretionary permit law told me that when he got his permit, all he had to do was to appear before the county judge who apparently was only interested in seeing that he was white. My step dad had an application for a discretionary permit for Connecticut: the only instruction on self defense was a reproduction of the state statutes copied from the law code with the note that the applicant read it. The old Tennessee "special deputy badge" discretionary carry permit was inconsistently administered across the state with different standards for each of the 95 county sheriff offices. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the statement you are referring to. I tried searching for all instances of the word "Virginia" in the article and came up empty. Can you tell me where to find the statement you are disputing? Sperril (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The talking point was removed from VA. You would have to check recent history (deleted 17:24 20 Jan 2011 by IP 12.71.173.3; added 20:33 8 Mar 2010 by Forward Thinkers self ID'd as an employee of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). It is an often repeated (false) claim about TN, and possibly other states, and may be reinserted. Search internet for exact match on phrase (w/o state name). Naaman Brown (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From taking a look around google, the claim appears to be correct. virginiaconcealedcarry.com lists the following steps required to get a permit: 1; Take a course either online, or in-person, (not required if you have a DD214) 2; Fill out the application. 3; Get fingerprinted (in some counties.) 4; Pay the fee. 5; Wait for it to arrive in the mail. The online course is $50 and consists of a 90 minute video. It doesn't mention a 20 question test being required. I've found many websites that list the requirements and they all say watching an online video does indeed satisfy the training requirements for VA. Sperril (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The talking point: "Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online" minimizes the requirements for a carry permit.

Virginia State Police resident concealed handgun permits: "Virginia Resident Concealed Handgun Permits are issued by the circuit court of the county or city in which the applicant resides. Please contact the applicable court for specific instruction on the application process."

Virginia State Police application for a concealed handgun permit: "The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence:"

One of the eight specific options is "7. Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;" and a catch-all "9. Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate." Any of the first eight demonstrations of handgun competency is considered adequate, including (8) prior certification from a "governmental police agency firearms training course". I do realize those with a video course to sell will minimize or ignore the other seven specific demonstrations of handgun competency recognized by the law. The Virginia State Police advise you to contact your county circuit court for instruction specific to your county.

I also know that those wishing to disparage the handgun permit policy in VA (and other states including TN) editorialize on the "only requires applicants to view a video" meme found at HuffPost, DU, Brady, VPC, etc. (In the permit class I took in TN, videos on self defense law and handgun safety were part of two four-hour classes, which were only part of the permit application process.) Demonstration of competency with a handgun is not the "only" requirement as part of the application process. The real sticking point for critics of VA handgun permit laws is not the "only" viewing a video bit. It is this part of the law: "The court shall issue the permit within 45 days of receipt of the completed application unless it appears that the applicant is disqualified." Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center oppose laws that require "shall issue" to all qualified applicants. They give their highest ratings to discretionary permit laws where permit applications are routinely denied to qualified applicants for no given reason and where permits may be granted at discretion of authority with no show of handgun competency at all. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All of this tells me that the statment is true on it's face. You can be considered appropriately trained to carry a concealed handgun in VA by watching an internet video. I don't care if the libs are using it as a talking point if it's a true statement. In this case, it appears to be quite true. I still don't have any idea why you are mentioning it in relation to this article though. If it's been deleted, why keep bringing it up? (I'm far from an expert on concealed carry seeing as how my state doesn't allow it for anyone except law enforcement.) Sperril (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this whole argument fall apart when you factor in Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona? Not trying to reignite this, but it does seem moot when you consider those states.Legitimus (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Training options in other states do not change the fact that "Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online" is not true; "7. Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;...." is one of eight state recognized training options and a circuit court may accept other training options besides those eight.

"only requires...view a video and pass...test online" is not the only training option in Virginia, is not a complete description of option 7 anyway, and is not the only requirement to get a permit in Virginia.

As for Vermont, Vermont for generations has allowed concealed carry by any adult who can legally buy and legally possess a handgun with no special permit to carry needed and no training requirements at all, and you can look at the results in comparing its ratings with other neighboring states:

State Brady Campaign Ratings v FBI UCR Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern US          2003              2006              2009
STATE        GRADE  CRIME  HOMICIDE   CRIME  HOMICIDE   CRIME  HOMICIDE   
Connecticut    A-   308.2    3.0      280.8    3.1      298.7    3.0  
Maine          D-   108.9    1.2      115.5    1.7      119.8    2.0 
Massachusetts  A-   469.4    2.2      447.0    2.9      457.1    2.6
New Hampshire  D-   148.8    1.4      138.7    1.0      159.6    0.8
Rhode Island   B-   285.6    2.3      227.5    2.6      252.6    2.9
Vermont        D-   110.2    2.3      136.6    1.9      131.4    1.1

Brady gives high ratings (A and B grades) to CT MA and RI for having restrictive gun laws, including discretionary "may-issue" permit laws. Brady gives ME NH VT bad ratings (D- grades) for having lax gun laws, especially VT carry w/o permit. CRIME is violent crime: homicide, armed robbery, aggravated assault and rape and rates are per 100,000 population per year; HOMICIDE includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what's hilarious? The only place I can find that statement being made online is by a pro-gun group that is bragging how easy it is to get a permit in Viginia. They are the ones that stated that they only needed to view a video to get it. The statement is absolutely true from what I can tell. Yes, you can do other things to get a permit. But you don't need to. You can get it by watching the video and dropping off a check at the courthouse. They may or may not fingerprint you depending on county. You can try to hide it in a bunch of statistics about crime in states that we aren't talking about, but it doesn't change the fact that the statement is fully accurate.

From concealed-carry.net's FAQ for their video training course:

1. Our Most Frequently Asked Question: Are you sure this class will be accepted by my circuit court? Yes. Our certificate is accepted by every circuit court in Virginia for resident permit issuance, and by the Virginia State Police for their issuance of non-resident permits. Since July 1, 2009, it must be accepted as a matter of law.

2. Our Second Most Frequently Asked Question: The video stopped playing... what do I do? If you are a frequent internet user, you probably have many temporary files taking up space that your video player needs to work properly. If this happens, simply click the "Online Help" tab at the top of this screen or on the homepage for instructions on how to clear those temporary files. The second "fix" is to download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player by using the link provided on the same page.

5. Don’t you have to fire a gun to qualify for a Concealed Handgun Permit? No. Virginia law calls for taking a firearms training OR a safety class. Learning handgun safety does not entail live fire, shooting for a minimum score, or even touching a gun. This course satisfies Virginia law in that it teaches firearms safety.

8. How long does the test take and what is its level of difficulty? What is a passing score? The test consists of 20 questions of different types: True/False, Multiple Choice, and Fill-In-The-Blank. No two tests are alike. Test completion times have ranged from as little as 5 minutes to as many as 12 minutes. Speed is not important; reading and understanding what is being asked is. Take as little or as much time as you think necessary. If you watch the video and immediately take the test, the higher your score will tend to be. A passing score is 75% (15 of 20) correct.

9. What if I fail the test? Better than 99.9% of everyone who has taken the class has passed the test on the first attempt. This does not mean that the test is easy; we feel it reflects the quality of instruction given here. As part of the price you pay for the class, those who do not pass the first time are given another opportunity to retake the test at no additional charge. The cost to retake the test a third time is $9.99. Sperril (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick search this morning on the phrase only requires applicants to view a video shows off the bat: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/HisXLNC/majority-of-americans-opp_n_573732_47247693.html HuffPost pundit RealPolitic: "Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online." What a joke!"

The same argument is used at DemocraticUnderground and other anti-gun blogs and did appear in an editorial in my hometown newspaper against the Tennessee handgun permit law claiming it was the only requirement to get a permit (when in fact the video was part of a 4 hr class on safety and requirements included another 4 hr class on selfdefense law with another video by the state AG on recent court cases, live fire for minimum score at the range, fingerprinting, TBI and FBI BG check).

Disregarding the "only requires applicants to view a video" as a misleading meme for getting a permit as used by opponents to the Virginia law in editorials: the "only requires applicants to view a video" is a misleading meme for meeting training requirements in regard to concealed-carry.net's spiel for their Virginia state-approved on-line video training. There are eight state-recognized training options and the circuit court can choose to recognise other training options: the video course is not the only option. Since the state approved the concealed-carry.net course it meets their training options, but it is not the only (exclusive) training option and it is not the only (mere) requirement for a Virginia permit. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)