Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« MO governor takes on the Obama Truth Squad | Main | Conflicting news out of NJ »

A slip

Posted by David Hardy · 29 September 2008 08:41 AM

Sensibly Progressive takes on a grad student, publishing in the Yale campus newspaper.

The grad student begins by demonstrating that crime rates rose after Connecticut went to "shall issue" CCW in 1969. The minor problem being that Connecticut isn't "shall issue," and nobody was passing "shall issue" laws in 1969; the only laws being enacted back then were more and more restrictions on firearms.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

geekwitha.45 | September 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply

CT's a bit of an anomaly. Structurally, it's "may issue", but for all intents and purposes, it's been de-facto shall issue for reputable folks since forever.

Jim | September 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply

I believe that CT is "shall issue" in fact because of a CT court decision based upon their constitution. I had to research this at one point. Absent that decision, I don't see CT having become shall issue through its political process.

Flash Gordon | September 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply

geekwitha.45 is what I thought, but please Jim give us the case cite if you have it. I agree that CT would not be shall issue through its legislature but I'd sure be surprised if shall issue was accomplished by a state court decision. I have always assumed it was just a long standing policy with the state police.

Steve W. | September 30, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply

Interesting ... CT is pretty clearly considered shall issue by the Brady Campaign and handgunlaw.us (the two sites I looked at), but the NRA calls it a "discretionary-reasonable issue" state.

Even if this is so (and CT is way out of my neighborhood, I'm in Colorado) I still would have written the post, just confronted the logic with more detail.

I also know that Iowa falls into this same category with the NRA, but many Iowans don't feel that is warranted and that the authorities have way too much discretionary power.

Anyway ... thanks for pointing this out. I don't know if I should do a correction or not, as I did quote two (hopefully) respectable sources.

Anonymous | September 30, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply

>>because of a CT court decision based upon their constitution.

I've never heard that, but that wouldn't surprise me at all.

CT's state constitutional guarantee language is very strong: "Sec. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.", being one of a handful of states that directly includes individuals, individual lawful purposes, and avoids weasel phrases such as "subject to the power of police".


Vermont has "Vermont carry" as a result of judicial action back around nineteen oh something, when a town tried to require handgun permits, and so there's a tradition of the New England courts doing that sort of thing.

As a native son of CT, I can say that Yankee pragmatism tends to blunt the wilder excesses of neoLiberalism, though I remain at a loss to explain MA, other than "they must enjoy it".

Steve W. | October 1, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply

I've done a little more reading on this. It seems that most groups other than the NRA mark CT down as just another "may issue" state. And from reading a few anecdotes, a carry license doesn't appear to be quite as much of a sure thing as in a true "shall issue" state as the authorities can oppose it so long as they aren't being arbitrary etc.

Leave a comment