Talk:Carrying concealed weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] POV?

This article could benefit from some additional text covering some of the arguments against concealed carry. Right now it's less neutral point of view than it could be. (this from a handgun owner, btw).

-- Pat

That is could. I wrote the original, and didn't intend it to be a love-fest for either the pro- or anti-gun crowd. Anyone from Handgun Control out there to provide another opinion?

dino 03:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article doesn't need arguments against concealed carry. A neutral point is view isn't always the right point of view. The arguments against concealed carry fall flat when you consider the statistics gathered on the subject.

-Alyeska

It DOES need arguments on both sides or by defenition it is not Neutral. Right or wrong, Wikipedia attempts to be neutral. Statistics don't prove anything. Stats are so easy to manipulate, they can be turned around faster than you can say "Gun rights" or "Gun Control". motor.on

Reality Check! NPOV means presenting facts and not opinions. Presenting both sides of an arguement is not NPOV, it's anti-informative and biased. Period. --Shawn 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there should be equal time to the pro KKK wiki page, or equal time to Holocaust denialists?

This article primarily states the status of current laws in the US regarding concealed carry rights. It would be a point of view to make the case that such laws shouldn't exist in the overview or introduction of the article. That said, however, because concealed carry laws are controversial, there are collections of points made on both sides of the argument to summarize differing points of view contained in the article. These points of view don't have to be NPOV, but they do need to be balanced. The current article does seem to be balanced in total. But, it is not our position to make the case for or against concealed carry laws as much as to state the current status of these laws, and, for balance, to state the points of view of the major viewpoints, including significant minority viewpoints, of why such a right exists or should not exist. Yaf 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the position should not be to make a case for or against concealed carry, but even if both points of view are balanced, should they really exist in an encyclopedia? As has been mentioned above, I think NPOV means exactly that... not providing equal time to those for and against the issue. Cosmos7 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other weapons

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)

[edit] Which States?

Could someone list the States which (or, as it would be shorter: which do not) allow Concealed Carry?

If you go down to the bottom of the article, in the links is the one to Packing.org, which is described as having a state-by-state database. It is difficult to give a simple list, as different states have different definitions of concealed carry and some may not include reciprocity. -Fuzzy 01:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way is to work from most restrictive states to least restrictive states. Vermont and Alaska have unrestricted carrying of handguns (loaded, unloaded, visible, concealed--makes no difference) execept where carry is restricted by federal law. Four states (Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin and Illinois) do not currently allow the carrying of concealed handguns except for certain classes of individuals (like private investigators and even that is limited). Washington, D.C. should fall into this category as well. While D.C. DOES allow individuals possessing a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun, no permits have been issued since 1976. Nine states (Hawaii, California, Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Deleware, and Maryland) have "may issue" laws which are very restrictive in terms of who can have a concealed carry permit. Applicants must demonstrate both a compelling need and a level of firearms competency to get the license. All of the remaining states have "shall issue"--as long as you meet the requirements you shall receive a license.

[edit] Not sure about relevance of state coverage

Many countries allow, or do not intervene in the freedom of, their citizens to carry handguns concealed to some degree or other. It would be somewhat slanted to adopt an Americocentric point of view of concealed carry without deliving into the rest of the world with a similar degree of resolution. The countries Switzerland, Israel and Yemen come to mind.

Agreed, I think someone should write a more international POV article at the top, and then a per-country view further down. Most of the current article could be moved to an "America" section. --84.119.225.232 13:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (user:kasperl before logging in.

Since this article was written with only the US in mind, I renamed the article to be "Concealed carry (USA)" and forwarded the old name to it. If somebody wants to create an "international" concealed carry page under the old name, go ahead. Otherwise for searching sake, I'll leaving it as a redirection. Wodan 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

You should have moved it and then made a new 'Concealed carry' page so the history could be viewed in the new location Preisler 22:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that was possible. I'll ask an admin to try to fix it. Thanks for pointing it out. Wodan 22:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Concealed carry

Text restored from the 18:45, 14 May 2005 revision of this page. It was originally at Concealed carry. dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was moved to "Concealed carry (USA)." Can I get an explanation? Notthe9 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Somebody had a problem with the lack of representation of concealed carry in non-USA countries and called the page USA-biased. In order not to have USA pertinent information removed, I moved the page to Concealed carry (USA) and ended the "confusion." Unfortunately I didn't know about the page move function and just did a cut a paste, so the talk page was not moved. I have requested the admins to migrated the old talk page and histories to the current Concealed carry (USA) page. Wodan 21:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who complained, in the vain hope that some EU legal knowledgables would add some more info. Still, the move was a good idea IMHO. I just hope that a more general page might someday be written by someone who knows enough about it. --Kasperl 18:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it does make sense to have a US-specific article, since it's a major and somewhat insular debate in the U.S. A broader article could discuss concealed-firearms laws in general, and link to this one for the specifics on the U.S. debate. --Delirium 08:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For enquiring minds

According to http://www.packing.org, there are currently 4 states out of 50 that do not have any provision in their laws for allowing concealed carry of firearms. Those four are Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

In Nebraska, apparently open carry is legal, although regulated in some localities. Kansas issues CCW permits to Private Investigators only, and those typically will be honored in other states. Also, open carry does appear to be legal in Kansas as well. In Wisconsin, while CCW is not legal, again, open carry is, although there are some restrictions.

In Illinois, open and concealed carry of a LOADED firearm is illegal. However, there was a change in the law a few years ago, that some people have been taking advantage of. For further info, you should check out http://www.concealcarry.org. WARNING!!! I have been told that most Illinois County prosecutors are looking to get someone for following the advice from that site. So far I understand they haven't been too successful. --Al 22:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick aside as to Kansas' issuing CCW permits only to PIs. The state of Ohio had for many years required private investigators to undergo firearms training in order to get their PI license, but once they had their licence they were forbidden by state law to carry a concealed handgun. In Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 2003 the Ohio Supreme Court upheld this odd restriction. This decision was the spark that lead to the passage of Ohio's concealed carry law that became effective April 8, 2004.

[edit] FBI statement

> A quote at the following site: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry > > > > The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall > in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms > for self-defense." > > I called the FBI this morning and they claim they made no sush statement. > Could you please send me you exact reference to this quote? > > Thanks, Lance May

Can anyone investigate this further for us? -- Zanimum 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is doubtful that a random staff person answering the phone would know the source of this quote off the cuff. As for the quote, it was published in the 1992 Uniform Crime Report issued by the FBI. Have added citation, with a verifiable citation, for substantiating this quote. Yaf 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[How would you know how extensively I called the FBI? [You are making assumptions. Lance May] Your reference YAF is worthless even if correct. You need to get the crime report from the FBI and quote it exactly ie page number etc. I have already tried this and it does not say any such thing. This famous quote is based on an individuals interpretation of the FBI statistics and as such is disputable. Sincerely, Lance May

Lance, Where did you find a copy of the FBI's 1992 Uniform Crime Report, was it online? I was just at the FBI's UCR page: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm and they show no UCRs before 1995. Thanks, David Fortini

If anyone is interested, I just received a CD containing pdf files of the FBI's UCR's from 1980-1994. The 1992 report is there but it's 426 pages long. If someone has OCR software I'll be happy to email them a copy so we can do a search. A cursory review of the "violent crime" section (where I would assume any quote like this would be) showed no mention of gun ownership at all. Lawyer2b 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that this hasn't been properly sourced, I'm removing the second paragraph in the statistics section. The first paragraph has about as much foundation as the second did, and should probably go too. SS451 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing the statistic section. I scoured the internet for sources but can't find any that support those statements. I did find a bunch of other stats though. Problem is it's difficult to find stats that DIRECTLY relate to concealed carry. Most are just self defense stats. If I find anything noteworthy that directly relates to CCW I'll add it. Thernlund 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Total?

The opening of this article states "Currently, 47 U.S. states permit adults who have applied, have no criminal record, and (in some cases) meet training requirements to carry one or more handguns in a concealed manner." Isn't this up to 48 with Nebraska? Later in the article it sayst that only Wisconsin and Illinois prohibit CCW. Marknoble 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... We really should have a definitive list on that, although a list of states that don't allow concealed carry at all would be far more sensible than listing all those that do. Dick Clark 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] make sense

Opening paragraph says "In others open carry is prohibited even with a permit." this doesn't make sense in context. should be "even without" or "with a different"

It means if you carry the weapon must not be visible.

[edit] table?

A table would be useful, with following details about which states:

no permit required/shall issue/may issue/prohibit
with may issue states, what is the real practice
reciprocal agreements
allow open carry
allow back-ups
allow alternative weapons
mandate new weapon integral locking mechanisms

it could be stated to be correct as at a certain date

[edit] Quotes Needed

Good point David! I think 1995 is as far back as is available at the FBI site. I called the FBI and had the assistant pull the file and scan it for key words. She was unable to locate within it any statements that are quoted in this article. You see, I'm a gun owner and strongly believe in ownership. The problem with this article is that the quotes from the 1992 report are taken from unreliable sources like blogs and biased sites. Whoever the author is, they should get a copy of that report and quote the page these statements appear on. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also why quote 1992 statistics when the 2003 report is available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf. There is further data at: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ I'll tell you why because it's a case of quoting someone else in an unbroken chain for over a decade. An antigunner would make fun of such a pathetic piece of propaganda as this article. I can't imagine the author quoting a blog for a reference. Let's show some class! On further note, the article is not even close neutral. Take a look at the FBI statistics for Illinois http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm It shows just as much or more reduction in crime, and it is a non-carry state. Could it be that crime rates are dropping regardless of carry permits? A non-biased article would be frank about this posibillity. As of today June 2006 on the news: Crime is up. See: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/national/w060449D57.DTL

[edit] Tags added

Article is unencyclopedic. It offers arguments for and against ccw, but not enough basic information on these laws. A summary of laws by state would be a good place to start. Article contains whole sections without sources. Pro-ccw arguments are stronger than anti-ccw arguments.--JChap 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would agree with your comments regarding more information about state laws and sources I find your comments upon the strength of arguments to be irrelevant given the situation. The strength of ones arguments do not reflect on any bias or misconduct, they represent the merits of ones position.--Mutex 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the wrong tag and I will be removing it. That tag is for articles on subjects that simply shouldn't be on wikipedia, this article needs work, but the subject is encyclopedic. The right tags would be the Citations tag, This article needs to be expanded tag, and probably the clean up tag. The tag you put is "This article shouldn't be on wikipedia on this subject at all." PPGMD 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I added the tags that I tought it needed, the intro needs cleanup badly, it's way too long. PPGMD 01:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think Preferred Weapons for Concealed Carry section should be deleted

This entire article should only hold mention of weapons commonly carried and not go into great detail, as most of the stuff in this section is not fact. This section should present facts about "What is Concealed Carry?" and not "how to select a weapon for concealed carry as," because it is a strongly debated topic. There is no way to present it from a NPOV unless you simply describe features as what they do. Even if this section is rewritten to be just defined firearm terms, then it should be in a general article about firearms and not concealed carry.

This section presents wording that is not neutral such as, "It is widely held...," "may not be able...," and, "its reputation..." Other terms like, "Stopping Power," which is still strongly argued in the firearm community and does not have any facts supporting it. In the same section it states, "increasing stopping-power," which is a list with many caliber's ability to stop someone strongly argued. Another line, " Single-action revolvers are rarely concealed-carried," presents not fact that this is the case and simply the original posters POV. Unless someone presents a strong argument to keep this section, then I'm going to delete it. I will possibly sit down and rewrite it from blank again as well but I say firstly, let's get this entire article based on FACT. - Reflux 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a list of facts, or, in the case of this article as you have proposed, should it be just a list of firearm terms. On the other hand, your claim of the appearance of POV is certainly a valid point, as citations do need to be added for the unsupported claims that are here. Most of these claims, though, do largely appear to follow published recommendations similar to what Ayoob, Royce, and other similar gun authors have published and continue to recommend.

Instead of deleting the whole section, how about if we consider tagging the individual statements that need to be cited? That would likely be more productive. For example, the 9 mm and/or 38 special recommendation as a minimum self-defense caliber is well documented in Royce (in BGB), among several other sources. The article should be based not on fact, per se, but rather on citations that can be verified; otherwise it won't be in accordance with WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:VER, etc., criteria. Yaf 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article does not have to be a "list" of facts but should be a well written article presenting the verifiable facts of conceal carrying. One caliber being better than another is not verifiable facts in most cases and is strongly disputed. Same goes for the list of calibers in order of stopping power. A list of commonly carried calibers would be better wording as the effectiveness of each is something that is commonly argued and not verifiable fact. This current article has unverifiable facts and some weasel words. If specific qualites are to be listed (i.e. minimum caliber suggested), then the source of who said it needs to be cited. The top of the page even has messages about the neutrality of this article, the quality of it, and the lack of references. Reflux 07:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, You know where some of these quotes come from? I have a couple books, one by Ayoob, that I can look for. Also going to get some references up for this page. Reflux 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do; as I have several books that will provide citations for some of these points, with re-writes of course as necessary to capture specific quotations. Will probably add these references/citations this weekend. Later... Yaf 02:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methods of Carry

The part about Georgia that said IWB clips are illegal was incorrect. The law says and I quote:

"...firearm may only be carried in a shoulder holster, waist belt holster, any other holster, hipgrip, or any other similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the person´s clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other closed container."

A hipgrip is a clip protruding from the grip. See http://www.baramihipgrip.com/ for an example of what a hipgrip is. A similar device to a hipgrip is a clip.

[edit] State Total part 2

Reciprocity recognition is tough to keep up with. Packing.org has fallen upon hard times to keep their database updated due to most of the crew moving over to http://www.handgunlaw.us/ due to political infighting.

handgunlaw.us has a PDF file that lists reciprocity with an update of 9/5/06.

handgunlaw.us has State Laws updated 8/6/06 PDF file contains; specific law cited to allow CCW, deadly force, knife, chemical, and body armor.

Q&A Missouri information to add for questions about issues in Missouri.

After looking over this article; I've seen a few holes that need patching. Overall there has been much research completed.

You might change the NRA training webaddress:

For training and instruction:National Rifle Association

Its easier than sorting past other topics.

Keep safe and keep going.

ArmedCitizen 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current intro: "Privilege"

The use of the term "privilege" violates WP:NPOV. While some feel that CCW is a privilege to be granted by local government, similar to drivers' license, others feel that concealed carry is a right granted by the US Constitution and, where infringed by local government, is a violation of Federal law.

The introduction, by defining CCW as a privilege, does not acknowledge this and therefore is not as neutral as it could be.

69.181.2.4 18:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Centred Article

I do not believe that this article should refer only to the United States. If I search for concealed weapon I am redirected here, and to my knowledge carrying concealed weapons is a practice in many countries. I am put the US bias tag back up until the article is fixed. Yours, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article addresses a practice that is only permitted in the United States for ordinary private citizens. Handguns are entirely banned in the UK, Japan, Australia, and many other countries. There is thus no CCW equivalent there. In other countries, such as Mexico, handgun possession is permitted, but only as allowed by law, and the laws generally do not permit concealed carry except for a few well-connected and powerful famous persons. CCW is a US-centric practice, with a US-only terminology, with no known other country that widely permits concealed carry by arbitrary private citizens. Yes, some countries permit a few well-connected and very wealthy individuals to carry concealed weapons (e.g., Mexico, most of Latin America, parts of Africa, and also Eastern Europe.) But, I don't think the practice of "shall issue" for arbitrary private citizens who are not well-connected and wealthy exists other than in the US. Hence, I don't think this is a US bias tagging point, but rather a US-centric practice. Hence, no tag is needed. If you are aware of a licensing system in any other country that makes handguns available for ordinary private citizens, being of no particular wealth or political-connections, then please add appropriate information. Otherwise, the globalize tag is not needed. Yaf 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is overly US centric. If CCW is only a US phenomenon (which I highly doubt in any case), this article should provide that information, along with verifiable information etc. I tend to agree with posters above that the CCW article should be a general, non specific country-centric one, with links to more country-specific ones. !jim 08:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with that is, again, that this is an issue almost exclusive to the United States. There are roughly 50 people in all of Canada, for instance, who are liscenced to carry a handgun in public; and, from what I've read, a few tens of thousands in each Germany and Italy (primarily jewellers, bankers, etc.). Switzerland and the Czech Republic tightened their CCW laws in the past few years; I do, however, believe that Latvia and perhaps the other Baltic states have what equates to shall-issue concealed carry, and the practise is even more common in Israel than in the United States.

Unfortunately, there is simply not a lot of good information available on CCW in countries other than the United States, as opposed to the plethora of information on CCW in the U.S. User:Spock 156.34.64.9 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, this article should be titled something along the lines of "Concealed Carry Weapons in America". Otherwise, it should describe the situation in other countries. 24.3.142.198 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone knows anything about carry laws in other countries, feel free to write them up.--jdege 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing logic in crime rate reduction argument

I found the logic in the following paragraph confusing:

States that have strict CCW or do not permit CCW had higher crime rate reductions than states that had more lax CCW laws. See the report by the Brady Campaign [1] Comparing crime rate reductions, instead of total numbers of crimes, is misleading, as crime rates have been falling nationally with the aging of the baby boom generation without regard to CCW law changes.[2] Looking at the total crime rates is perhaps more indicative, since by published statistics; "The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000)."[3]

The Brady Campaign source cites the statistics that between '92 and '98, violent crime rates dropped an average of 30% in states that kept strict CCW laws v.s. 15% in states that adopted more lenient laws. While that certainly may not be a perfect indication of CCW leading to more crime, the argument that the stats are misleading due to falling national crime rates (as a result of aging baby boomers?) simply does not make sense. In fact, the comparison of total violent crime rate between the two classes of states is much more misleading since that does not take into account the fact that restrictive states could have higher crime rates regardless of CCW laws. At least the former stats normalizes the difference in total crime rate during the time period when some states adopted liberal CCW laws.

I propose the latter half of the paragraph be removed or at least tempered somewhat, but I don't want to make an edit before getting some feedback first. --Ddickison 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the language in the article that is confusing, it's the argument that the language is attempting to describe that is confusing. And that's not something we're going to be able to fix with better editing.

--jdege 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy Sections

The section on advocacy for greater restriction of concealed carry is more of a counter argument to concealed carry restriction than an explanation of that movement. That section and the following one could use some retooling, and references to advocacy groups. Kborer 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two sections into a section on concealed carry politics. It could use some more global information, info on concealed carry groups, and more studies specifically aimed at concealed carry laws. Kborer 06:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii?

Regarding Hawaii's issuance or non-issuance of carry permits, the best source might be: http://hawaii.gov/ag/cpja/main/rs/sp_reports_0306/gunreg04.pdf

When reading this, remember that Hawaii is one of only a very few (three?) states that requires a permit to own a firearm. Most of the discussion of permits in this document are regarding ownership permits, not carry permits.

Regarding carry permits:

Licenses to Carry

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2004, 263 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses and one (0.4%) was rejected due to disqualifying factors. (Notably, 2004 marks the first year in which the rejection rate for security officer carry permits did not exceed the rejection rate for regular longarm and handgun permit applications from the general public.) Five private citizens in the City & County of Honolulu applied for a concealed carry license and were denied at the discretion of the police chief.

From which I read that 1:, the chiefs have complete discretion regarding to whom they issue, 2: that they are granting carry licenses only to employees of private security firms, 3: applications by private citizens who are not employees of private security firms are uniformly denied, and 4: gun owners know that private citizens who are not employees of private security firms will be denied, and hence very few of them bother to apply.

--jdege 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right or Privilege

A constitutional right can not be considered a privilege regardless of the jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction can claim the second amendment is a privilege, what would stop them from claiming the first amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights is a privilege as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.189.179 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The latest reversion of the "right or privilege" language includes the comment that it's a right in some jurisdictions, and a privilege in others. This is absurd.

Rights are universal. They're not granted by government. So if it's a right, it's a right recognized in some jurisdictions, and infringed in others. Or if it's a privilege, it's a privilege granted in some jurisdictions, and not granted in others.

We can argue about whether it's a right, or not. But the idea that it's a right in some places but not in others is simple nonsense.

--jdege 14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Second Amendment says nothing about concealed carry. The right to keep and bear arms is distinctly different from the right to keep and carry concealed weapons per state jurisprudence case law, at least in some states. See the state court section discussion in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article for the two distinctly different state interpretations on this (in Kentucky and Arkansas, for the two earliest trend-setting examples). In some jurisdictions, the Second Amendment right is interpreted as including the right to carry weapons concealed; it is not interpreted this way in other jurisdictions. Hence, the reason for the statement in the lead paragraph of this article for defining Carrying concealed weapon (CCW) as a privilege or right. In many states that currently grant CCW licenses, CCW is considered a privilege. Other states require no such license, recognizing CCW as being an inherent right of a citizen. Pick the right jurisdiction, and your interpretation will hold water; pick the wrong jurisdiction, and you will be imprisoned for a very, very long time. Yaf 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vermont and Alaska agree with your "right" argument. None of the other states with CCW consider it to be a right, but instead define it as a privilege that is licensed. The most NPOV treatment is to leave the ambiguity of a "privilege or right" in the lead, with the details in the article defining where it is which. We don't want to get people in trouble by becoming court test cases, by assuming it is automatically a right. Yaf 16:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether CCW is a right or a privilege is a matter of debate, and we needn't come down on one side or another. But we want to avoid internally-inconsistent language, like "it is a right in some jurisdictions". "It is recognized as a right in some jurisdictions" makes sense. "It is a right in some jurisdictions" does not.

--jdege 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one, Jdege. I think we can all agree that the RKBA is per-se a right (after all, the 2nd amendment specifically says so). The issue of whether it is an individual or a collective right and how it applies to CCW-related aspects of the law is vital, IMHO, and shouldn't be ignored but there's a time and a place for this type of debate.

And as long as we don't have a SCOTUS ruling that clarifies the issue one way or another, it's probably best to stick to the somewhat ambiguous phrasing we have right now (ie. "it is recognized as a right in some jurisdictions"). Personally, I'm okay with "it's a right or a privilege", too, but I find "it is a right in some jurisdictions" a bit problematic (at least as it pertains to the status quo here in the US). I suggest we either stick with "a right or a privilege" or "is recognized as right in some jurisdictions" or we rewrite the section to reflect a less US-centric POV (ie. take, for instance, most European countries where CCW falls squarely into the 'privilege' category). Seed 2.0 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarrying_concealed_weapon_b535.html"