Concealed Carry in the United States - From Wikipedia
Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.
While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits, 48 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from state or local law enforcement. The states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), Concealed Pistol License (CPL), etc.
Some states publish statistics indicating how many residents hold permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. For example, Florida has issued more than 1.6 million permits since adopting its law in 1987, and had more than 600,000 licensed permit holders as of November 30, 2009. Reported permit holders are predominantly male. Some states have reported the number of permit holders increasing over time.
Regulations differ widely by state, with most currently maintaining a "Shall-Issue" policy. As early as the mid-'90s most states were No-Issue or May-Issue, but over the past 30 years states have consistently migrated to less restrictive alternatives.
|States and DC||Shall-issue||May-issue||Unrestricted||No-issue||Disputed|
|District of Columbia|
|New Jersey||In practice|
State regulations relating to the issuance of concealed carry permits generally fall into four categories described as No-Issue, May-Issue, Shall-Issue, and Unrestricted.
A No-Issue jurisdiction is one that does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun. The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized).
A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police). The law typically states that a granting authority may issue a permit if various criteria are met. A state that is de jure a May-Issue jurisdiction may range anywhere from No-Issue to Shall-Issue in actual practice.
California gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In California, the usual issuance of the permits ranges from a No-Issue policy, such as San Francisco, to an almost Shall-Issue environment in rural areas.
Iowa has a similar system, but more lenient policies, as most counties are rural. On April 29, 2010 Iowa governor Chet Culver signed into law SF 2379, a bill to reform the law that governs issuance of permits to carry weapons. on January 1, 2011, Iowa will become a "Shall issue" state.
New York also gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In New York City, a concealed weapons permit is allowed by law, but detractors have claimed it takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.
Maryland law contains provisions for citizens to apply for a concealed carry permit under a limited set of circumstances. These include several occupational reasons such as business owners or their employee who makes large cash deposits, retired police officers, doctors, pharmacists, private detectives, security guards, and railroad police. Correctional officers (who do not require a permit while on duty but cannot carry off duty) may obtain a permit if they can provide legally documented evidence of threats on their life. Similarly, private citizens can obtain a permit if they provide evidence of 3 death threats that have been documented by the police. Detractors have complained, however, that the permitting process is capricious, and only those with political or police connections can obtain a permit.
In Hawaii, carry is allowed with a permit, but it's restricted to "On Duty, In Uniform" and one's employer must register through a local police department. Generally, uniformed security personnel and armored couriers are granted permits.
Delaware By law is a " may issue " state. To obtain a concealed carry permit there is a lengthy application process requiring background checks and sworn, signed statements from 5 references. However, once these steps are completed permits are usually granted. Also, despite the fact that Delaware is a " may issue " state there are reciprocity agreements between various states and Delaware which allows many out-of-state residents to legally carry a concealed weapon in Delaware. 
New Jersey is a " May issue " state. However, it is the express policy of New Jersey legislative and law enforcement authorities that the carrying of a handgun on one's person be strictly limited only to those earning a living through the carrying of a handgun. Theoretically, there exists a route for a civilian to legally carry a handgun, but in reality, is practically nonexistent. Out of a population of 8,000,000 people there are less than 1,000 handgun carry permits in the state ( including those earning a living through the carrying of a handgun ).
Massachusetts is a "may issue" state for License to Carry Firearms (LTC) "Class A" and "Class B". Alternatively, a Firearms Identification Card (FID) is available and covers only non-large capacity rifles or shotguns, ammunition therefore and chemical sprays. A restricted FID for chemical sprays is also available. Both versions of the FID license are "shall issue".
A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits. Such laws typically state that a granting authority shall issue a permit if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a permit at their discretion.
Typical permit requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check, attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class, and paying a required fee. These requirements vary widely by jurisdiction. Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington have no training/safety certification requirement.
The following are undisputed Shall-Issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Iowa will also be included January 2011.
The status of Alabama and Connecticut are in some dispute among gun rights activists. The laws of both states, strictly speaking, would place them in the May-Issue category, as permit issue is by statute discretionary. However, gun rights activists claim that these states are effectively "Shall-Issue" in practice as counties frequently issue permits to applicants who meet certain basic criteria.
In Connecticut, firearms owners must first apply for a weapons carry permit through the local police department, which is May-Issue or Shall-Issue depending on the town (permits are generally easier to obtain in rural areas than in urban areas). If the permit application is denied by the local police department, the possessor may appeal the denial to the Department of Public Safety Special Licensing and Firearms Unit (SLFU), which must issue a weapons carry permit if the applicant has none of the criteria that would disqualify him or her from holding such permit.
An Unrestricted jurisdiction is one in which no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun.
Alaska is both a Shall-Issue and an Unrestricted state. Alaska does not require a permit for any law-abiding individual to carry a handgun, either openly or concealed, within the state's borders. However, the state continues to issue permits to any of its residents who meet the state's issuance criteria for reciprocity reasons; Alaska residents can carry with a permit while in other states that recognize the Alaska concealed carry license.
Vermont is unique in that permits are not required for both resident and non-residents to carry concealed. Since Vermont does not issue permits, its residents are unable to legally carry concealed in other states that would normally recognize out-of-state permit holders unless they hold some other state's permit. As a way around this situation, such person who wishes to legally carry a concealed firearm in another state can apply for and receive a non-resident permit from a state that issues non-resident permits, with Florida typically being the state of choice because it holds the widest reciprocity compared with other states that issue non-resident permits.
Arizona is an unrestricted carry state. On April 16, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed legislation allowing for unrestricted carry. The law took effect 90 days after the end of the state's current legislative session, putting the effective date on July 29, 2010. Arizona followed the lead of Alaska by continuing to issue permits on a "shall-issue" basis.
Some states require concealed carry applicants to certify their proficiency with a firearm through some type of training or instruction.
Classroom instruction would typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon. Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues.
Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. During range instruction, applicants would typically learn and demonstrate safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency.
CCW training courses are typically completed in a single day and are good for a lifetime.
Some states, e.g., Florida, recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Such states will ask for a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.
Not all states require training, or hands-on training. For example, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington have no training/safety certification requirement whatsoever. Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online.
Reciprocal recognition of concealed carry privileges and rights vary state-to-state, are negotiated between individual states, and sometimes additionally depend on the residency status of the license holder. While 37 states have reciprocity agreements with at least one other state and several states honor all out-of-state concealed carry permits, some states have special requirements like training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not honor permits from states that do not have such requirements for issue. Some states make exceptions for persons under the minimum age (usually 21) if they are active or honorably-discharged members of the military or a police force (the second of these two is also allowed under Federal law). States that do not have this exemption generally do not recognize any license from states that do. An example of this is the State of Washington's refusal to honor any Texas CHL as Texas has the military exception to age.
Missouri holds the widest reciprocity of all the states in the U.S. with the number of other states honoring its permit at 36, followed by Florida and Utah at 33; Missouri, however, does not issue permits to non-residents, and some states that honor Utah permits do not extend that to also include Utah's non-resident permits.
"Opt-Out" statutes ("gun-free zones")
Many states (e.g., Minnesota, South Carolina, Texas) allow private businesses to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit. By posting the signs, businesses create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun similar to regulations concerning schools, hospitals, and public gatherings. In addition to signage, virtually all jurisdictions also allow some form of oral communication by the lawful owner or controller of the property that a person is not welcome and should leave. This notice can be given to anyone for any reason (except for statuses that are protected by Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964s such as race), including due to the carrying of firearms by that person, and refusal to heed such a request to leave constitutes trespassing. In some jurisdictions trespass by a person carrying a firearm may have more severe penalties than "simple" trespass.
There is considerable dispute over the effectiveness of such "gun-free zones". Opponents of such measures state that, much like other malum prohibitum laws banning gun-related practices, only law-abiding individuals will heed the signage and disarm. Individuals or groups intent on committing far more egregious crimes, such as armed robbery or murder, will not be deterred by signage prohibiting weapons. In fact, it has been stated often that those wishing to commit mass murder actually choose venues like shopping malls, schools and churches (where weapons carry is generally prohibited) because the population inside is disarmed and thus less able to stop them.
In some states, business owners have been documented posting signs that appear to prohibit guns, but legally do not because the signs do not meet state or local laws defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign. Such signage can be posted out of ignorance to the law, or intent to pacify gun control advocates while not actually prohibiting the practice.
The Gun Control Act passed by Congress in 1968 lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. During the application process for concealed carry states carry out thorough background checks to prevent these individuals from obtaining permits. Additionally the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act created an FBI maintained system in 1994 for instantly checking the backgrounds of potential firearms buyers in an effort to prevent these individuals from obtaining weapons.
In 2004, the United States Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S. Code 926B and 926C. This federal law allows two classes of personsâ€”the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"â€”to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.
On May 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed H.R. 627, the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009," into law. The bill contained an amendment introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from enacting or enforcing any regulations that restrict possession of firearms in National Parks or Wildlife Refuges, as long as the person complies with laws of the state in which the unit is found. This provision was supported by the National Rifle Association and opposed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, among other organizations. As of February 2010 concealed handguns are for the first time legal in all but 3 of the nation's 391 national parks and wildlife refuges so long as all applicable federal, state, and local regulations are adhered to. Previously firearms were allowed into parks non-concealed and unloaded.
Attempts have been made in the United States House of Representatives (H.R. 226) and the United States Senate (S. 388) to enact legislation to compel complete reciprocity for concealed carry licenses. Opponents of national reciprocity have pointed out that this legislation would effectively require states with higher standards of permit issuance (i.e., training courses, safety exams, good cause, etc.) to honor permits from states with more liberal issuance policies, and states that do not allow concealed carry would be required to allow it.
Prior to the 1897 supreme court case Robertson v. Baldwin, the federal courts had been silent on the issue of concealed carry. In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.
In the majority decision in the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
Heller was a landmark case because for the first time in United States history a Supreme Court decision defined the right to bear arms as constitutionally guaranteed to private citizens rather than a right restricted to "well regulated militia[s]." The Justices asserted that sensible restrictions on the right to bear arms are constitutional however an outright ban on a specific type of firearm, in this case handguns, was in fact unconstitutional. The decision is limited because it only applies to federal enclaves such as the District of Columbia. On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban enacted by the city of Chicago, Illinois, in McDonald v. Chicago, effectively extending the Heller decision to states and local governments nationwide. Banning handguns in any jurisdiction has the effect of rendering invalid any licensed individual's right to carry concealed in that area except for federally exempted retired and current law enforcement officers and other government employees acting in the discharge of their official duties.
||This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010)
Even when self-defense is justified, there can be serious civil or criminal liabilities related to self-defense when a concealed carry permit holder brandishes or fires his/her weapon. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed, there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified.   Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. In some states, liability is present when a resident brandishes the weapon, threatens use, or exacerbates a volatile situation, or when the resident is carrying while intoxicated. It's important to note that simply pointing a firearm at any person constitutes felony assault with a deadly weapon unless circumstances validate a demonstration of force. A majority of states who allow concealed carry, however, forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.
Simultaneously, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to use them without first attempting to retreat. Nevertheless many states have adopted escalation of force laws along with provisions for concealed carry. These include the necessity to first verbally warn a trespasser or lay hands on a trespasser before a shooting is justified (unless the trespasser is armed or assumed to be so). This escalation of force does not apply if the shooter reasonably believes a violent felony has been or is about to be committed on the property by the trespasser. Additionally some states have a duty to retreat provision which requires a permit holder, especially in public places, to vacate him or herself from a potentially dangerous situation before resorting to deadly force. The duty to retreat does not restrictively apply in a person's home or business though escalation of force may be required. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. that if an individual does not provoke an assault and is residing in a place they have a right to be then they may use considerable force against someone they reasonably believe may do them serious harm without being charged with murder or manslaughter should that person be killed. However in all states except for Texas lethal force is not justifiable solely for the purpose of defending property. In those 49 states, lethal force is only authorized when serious harm is presumed to be imminent.
Even given these relaxed restrictions on use of force, using a handgun must still be a last resort in some jurisdictions; meaning the user must reasonably believe that nothing short of deadly force will protect the life or property at stake in a situation. Additionally, civil liabilities for errors that cause harm to others still exist, although civil immunity is provided in the Castle Doctrine laws of some states (e.g., Texas).
Penalties for carrying illegally
||This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010)
Typical policies that are used to determine who can legally carry concealed weapons are a prohibition of concealed carry, discretionary licensing, non-discretionary licensing, minimum age requirements (e.g., 18 or 21 years), successful completion of an instructor-led course, and marksmanship/handling qualification on a firing range. Less common is unregulated, legal concealed carry such as in Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona.
In the United States no convicted felon may purchase, transfer, or otherwise be in the possession of any firearm. Illegally concealing a handgun is a felony in many states therefore conviction of such a crime would automatically result in the forfeiture of a citizen's gun rights for life nationwide. Additional state penalties for unlawful carry of a concealed firearm can be severe with punishments including expensive fines, extended jail time, loss of voting rights, and even passport cancellation. A federal penalty of ten years in prison has been enacted for those found to be in possession of either firearms or ammunition while subject to a protection or restraining order. Such an order is grounds for the revocation of any concealed carry permit and the outright denial of any person's new application while the order is active. Weapon possession, in the context of concealed weapons, is a crime of that circumstance in which a person who is not legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon is found in possession of such a weapon. In the United States this can also be interpreted as the possession of a firearm by a person legally disqualified from doing so under the Gun Control Act. These prohibited individuals include those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, unlawful immigrant aliens, and individuals who have renounced their United States citizenship. None of these individuals are eligible for concealed weapons permits and may be punished not only for unlawful concealed carry of a handgun but also for unlawful possession of a firearm. Depending on state law, it can also apply to concealed carry of otherwise illegal knives such as stilettos, dirks or switchblades.
Citizens holding concealed carry permits may be prosecuted for failing to adhere to state and federal rules and regulations concerning the lawful exercise of carrying a concealed weapon. Some states do not allow the carrying of more than one concealed firearm by permit holders. Concealing two handguns, for example, might constitute a violation of law resulting in permit revocation or criminal charges. Carrying a handgun in the glove box of a vehicle, though commonly regarded as safe and legal, is considered illegal concealment in some states and could be punishable as a felony offense among non-permit holders. When arrested for any firearms offense the weapon(s) in question will be confiscated and could be destroyed upon conviction. It is also important to note that while legally carrying concealed outside of one's particular state of residence, such as in a state which grants reciprocity to the bearer's permit, he or she must comply with all regulations in the state in which they are currently carrying even if those rules and regulations differ from those of the individual's permit issuing state. Most states require that a person carrying a concealed weapon immediately declare this fact to any law enforcement officer they may encounter in the line of their official duties. This provision most commonly applies to traffic stops and police questioning but is also required upon approach of an officer by the person who is carrying concealed. Failure to comply with this provision is an arrestable misdemeanor and additionally may require the mandatory revocation of the licensee's permit. However simply passing an officer on the street, even at close distance, does not generally require the declaration of a concealed weapon. Carry of a concealed weapon by a licensed individual where prohibited is also generally referred to as illegal weapon possession. In some states, no person may be in the public possession of a firearm while under the intoxicating effects of narcotics (whether prescribed or otherwise) or alcohol (usually defined as .01% BAC but up to .05% BAC in some areas).
Even in localities where concealed carrying is permitted, there may be legal restrictions on where a person may carry a concealed weapon unless state law overrides a business posting that no firearms are allowed. Typical examples include the prohibition of concealed carry in:
- Public or private elementary and secondary schools either inside or within 1,000 feet of these areas (the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 contains an exception for individuals carrying under a state-issued permit, but some states that issue permits forbid carry in school buildings and/or on school property). The law authorizes federal penalties of up to $5,000 and five years in prison upon conviction.
- Establishments that sell alcohol. The interpretation of this restriction varies widely from state to state. Some ban carry from all such establishments such as retail liquor stores and supermarkets, others only from businesses that sell alcohol "by the drink" for on-premises consumption such as restaurants (with some of these states, such as Kentucky, further distinguishing by banning carry in bar areas but not in dining areas), still others only from businesses falling under the state's definition of a "bar" or "nightclub".
- Government buildings (State Capitol, courthouses, police stations, federal buildings, post offices).
- Public accommodations (theaters, concert halls, indoor shopping malls).
- Public events (polling places, state fairs, stadiums and other sporting venues).
The city of Chicago, Illinois as well as the District of Columbia had banned handguns completely within their respective jurisdictions however two recent Supreme Court cases have effectively deemed those statues to be illegal (see above).
Lastly, some states regulate which firearms may be concealed by a particular permit holder. Texas, for example, differentiates between semi-automatic and non-semi-automatic firearms, and an "NSA"-class permit holder cannot carry an autoloading handgun (restricting them largely to revolvers). Texans must qualify with the particular type of pistol they will be carrying. Other restrictions seen in certain states include restricting the user to a gun no more powerful than they used when qualifying, or to one or more specific guns specified by the permit holder when applying. New York prohibits certain specific makes and models of pistols (mostly Saturday Night Specials) and will not issue a permit for those specific weapons. Maryland has banned Saturday Night Specials completely. Other states ban the carrying of handguns with large-capacity magazines. In most states, though, a CCW permit holder is limited only by what they can conceal while wearing particular clothing.
Research on the efficacy of concealed carry
In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, one study found that crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses. However, another study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.
In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%. Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed. However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages. During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009. The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting. In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."
An article by Moody and Marvel uses a more extensive data set and projects effects beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws. Donohue and Ayres question the special case of Florida as well.
This empirical back-and-forth may well indicate that the data is too incomplete, ambiguous, and crude to establish the positive effects of conceal-carry on crime. For further discussion, also see Moody and Marvel's and Ayres and Donohue's 2009 articles in Econ Journal Watch.
The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis. On the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model showing more guns-more crime, the NAS panel stated: "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws."
In 2009, Public Health Law Research, an independent organization, published an evidence summary concluding there is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "Shall-Issue" laws as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.
Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period, meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. It should be pointed out that a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits.
In 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States. However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the justifiable homicide stat does not represent eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, grand jury, trial jury or appellate court; few US jurisdictions allow a police crime report to adjudicate a homicide as justifiable, resulting in a undercount in the UCR table. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.
- Open Carry
- Gun politics
- Gun politics in the US
- Gun laws in the United States (by state)
- Gun-free zone
- Transport Assumption
- ^ a b "Right-to-Carry 2008". National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. 2008-08-19. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18.
- ^ a b Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report - Oct. 1, 1987, to Nov. 30, 2009, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2009
- ^ License Holder Profile Report, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services - Division of Licensing, Retrieved August 2007
- ^ 2005â€“2006 CCW Annual Report, Michigan State Police
- ^ North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit Statistics by County - 12/01/1995 through 09/30/2004, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
- ^ http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html (Oct. 31, 2008)
- ^ a b See generally the several appendices to Steven W. Kranz, A SURVEY OF STATE CONCEAL AND CARRY STATUTES: CAN SMALL CHANGES HELP REDUCE THE CONTROVERSY?, 29 Hamline Law Review 638 (2006).
- ^ a b North Carolina shall-issue laws
- ^ a b Tennessee shall-issue laws
- ^ a b Utah shall-issue laws
- ^ ""Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws". Independence Institute. 1994-10-17. http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=643&print=1. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
- ^ http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/public-safety/2010/04/29/culver-signs-bill-making-iowa-shall-issue-gun-permit-state
- ^ See generally: Kopel and Cramer, supra, 62 Tenn. L. Rev at 684 (Stern, Sulzberger, Cosby).
- ^ "Maryland State Police - General Licensing Division Application". http://www.mdsp.org/downloads/licensing_application.pdf. Retrieved 6 August 2010.
- ^ Maryland Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws on USACarry.com
- ^ http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/crime/concealedweapons.shtml
- ^ http://www.goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/newres.pdf
- ^ Alaska Concealed Handgun Permits - Permits and Licensing Unit
- ^ The Vermont Statutes Online
- ^ http://www.yourwestvalley.com/articles/sparklers-15851-brewer-use.html
- ^ "Florida Statute 790". http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0790/ch0790.htm.
- ^ Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws by State on USACarry.com
- ^ http://ago.mo.gov/Concealed-Weapons/ Missouri Attorney General's Office - Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- ^ http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html Florida Division of Licensing, DOACS - Concealed Carry Reciprocity
- ^ http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html Utah Department of Public Safety - Reciprocity with Other States
- ^ http://www.leaa.org/index.html
- ^ National Parks Gun Law Takes Effect in February Washington Post, May 22, 2009.
- ^ Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks Washington Post, March 20, 2009.
- ^ Copy of Injunction
- ^ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/05/new-law-allows-guns-in-parks.html
- ^ Carter, Gregg Lee (2002). Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 506. ISBN 1-57607-268-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=RA1-PA506&dq=%22Justice+Brown+spotlighted+his+belief+that+the+guarantee+of+the+right+to+keep+and+bear+arms+was+not+infringed+by+laws+prohibiting+the+carrying+of+concealed+weapons%22&ei=U-6WS9PwOIqukASGucCuCQ&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Justice%20Brown%20spotlighted%20his%20belief%20that%20the%20guarantee%20of%20the%20right%20to%20keep%20and%20bear%20arms%20was%20not%20infringed%20by%20laws%20prohibiting%20the%20carrying%20of%20concealed%20weapons%22&f=false. Retrieved March 9, 2010. "Justice Brown spotlighted his belief that the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons"
- ^ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
- ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html
- ^ http://www.freep.com/article/20100604/NEWS01/6040313/Charges-in-stray-bullet-death
- ^ http://www.detnews.com/article/20100628/METRO01/6280395/1361/Wayne-County-judge-lessens-bond-for-man-accused-of-killing-bystander
- ^ http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/550/case.html
- ^ http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100608/NEWS01/6080342/Case-highlights-concealed-carry-weapons-issues
- ^ Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY, http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.HTM
- ^ http://www.hwylaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1492102.html
- ^ http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
- ^ http://www.sanduskyregister.com/sandusky/2010/jun/17/sandusky-police-arrest-accused-7-eleven-shooter
- ^ http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Carrying-Concealed-Weapon.htm
- ^ http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-3310-2.pdf
- ^ http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inlaco20100611330
- ^ http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Metro-East-man-arrested-for-gun-possesion-by-a-felon-swung-bat-at-family-members-96618604.html
- ^ http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-psychotherapist-arraigned-on-firearms-525834.php
- ^ http://www.correctionsone.com/arrests-and-sentencing/articles/2083794-25-arrested-230-guns-seized-in-NM-thrift-store-sting/
- ^ http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/nc.txt
- ^ http://pw1.netcom.com/~brlevine/sta-law.htm
- ^ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3ZKrHXH2INEaWpIKXIVhQtz16xgD9GDB4JO0
- ^ a b http://www.ncrpa.org/ccwfaq.htm
- ^ http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm
- ^ http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.12
- ^ http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20100617_Cops_stop_ex-NFL_receiver_Marvin_Harrison__take_gun.html#axzz0rACAKlrJ
- ^ http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html
- ^ http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm#RevocationSuspensionorSurrenderofPermit
- ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
- ^ http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf
- ^ http://www.texasconcealedhandgunlicense.us/
- ^ http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/155/5/406
- ^ Frank Espohl. "The right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Espohl1.htm.
- ^ John J. Donohue III & Ian Ayres. "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis". Stanford Law Review. http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf.
- ^ http://caivn.org/article/2010/06/12/more-guns-less-crime
- ^ John J. Donohue III & Ian Ayres. "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis". Stanford Law Review. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fislandia.law.yale.edu%2Fayers%2FAyres_Donohue_article.pdf&ei=KB0OSoqtK9qrtgesyoSBCA&usg=AFQjCNEG0HHaNjqk6PD8gJ6lD0JFyrVNTg.
- ^ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/table_1.html
- ^ a b http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/06/08/how-obama-reduced-crime-rates-last-year/print/
- ^ Glenn, David (May 9, 2003). "'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue". The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (35): A18. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i35/35a01801.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
- ^ Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III. 2009. "Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis â€“ With Some Help From Moody and Marvell". Econ Journal Watch 6(1): 35-59. 
- ^ Moody, Carlisle E. and Thomas B. Marvell. 2008. "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws?" Econ Journal Watch 5(3): 269â€“293. 
- ^ Moody, Carlisle, and Thomas B. Marvell. 2009. The Debate on Shall Issue Laws Continued. Econ Journal Watch 6(2): 203â€“217. 
- ^ Ayres, Ian and John J. Donohue III. 2009. More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977â€“2006. Econ Journal Watch 6(2): 218â€“238. 
- ^ "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004)". p. 2. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2.
- ^ National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences), Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, The National Academies Press, 2005. Chapter 6.
- ^ Public Health Law Research
- ^ "Shall Issue" Concealed Weapons Laws, Public Health Law Research 2009
- ^ FBI's Crime in the United States 2008
- ^ FBI's Crime in the United States 2009
- ^ Concealed Carry Killers, Violence Policy Center
- ^ Expanded Homicide Data, 2008, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- ^ Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun", 86 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1, 1995.
- ^ Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief, May 1997
- 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," Journal of Legal Studies.
- 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies.
- 1998 John Lott, "The Concealed-Handgun Debate." Journal of Legal Studies.
- 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI).
- 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI).
- 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, "Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review.
- 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, "Confirming 'More Guns, Less Crime," Stanford Law Review.
- 2003 Ayres and Donohue, "The Latest Misfires in Support of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis," Stanford Law Review.
- 2003 John Lott, The Bias against Guns (AEI).
- 2004 John Donohue. "Guns, Crime, and the Impact of State Right-to-Carry Laws" Fordham Law Review 73 (2004): 623.
- 2005 Robert Martin Jr., & Richard Legault, Systematic Measurement Error with State-Level Crime Data: Evidence From the "More Guns, Less Crime" Debate," J. RESEARCH IN CRIME & DELINQUENCY
- 2009 John Donohue and Ian Ayres. "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977â€“2006" Econ Journal Watch 6.2: 218â€“238.