« ACLU on Heller & McDonald | Main | ATF agent likely to win one against ATF management »
Dave Kopel on expansion of "shall issue" CCW
It's posted at the Volokh Conspiracy, which is now one of the Washington Post blogs (a wonder in itself!)
Basically, in 1986:
Under 10% of the US population lived in "shall issue" States.
About 33% lived in States that had no CCW permit process at all.
The remaining 57% lived in "may issue" States.
Only residents of Vermont could carry concealed without a permit.
As of today:
66% of the population lives in "shall issue" States.
No States have no CCW permit system at all.
27% live in "may issue" States.
7% live in States where you can carry concealed without a permit.
(And if the effect of the Peruta ruling is to make "shall issue" the rule in California and Hawaii, the percent in "may issue" will fall to 14%, and "shall issue" will rise to 79%).
10 Comments | Leave a comment
actually they are not busybodies as much as control freaks. In NY the 1911(?) Sullivan was passed to help certain gang members disarm rival gang members but the public rationale was to prevent "those" people from having firearms and we all know who "those" people are, ( and it wasn't just blacks, if you know what I mean).
sorry that is supposed to be Sullivan Act
DC is still no issue.
Old Guy: "those" people definitely included Italians.
Just like the family court judge in Leatherstocking Country who would have issued me a NY permit, had I stayed there long enough to complete the process.
Chuck Schumer was elected to the Senate so I chose not to stick around.
Much as I am delighted to see the spread of CC (shall issue) laws I must reiterate my concern over the similar spread of "assault" weapon, mag sizes and other such restrictions. The idea that having a reasonable CC permit system will guarantee a collapse of all illegal and absurd gun laws is wishful thinking. CC and the usual "grabber" laws can coexist with little difficulty. As mentioned by Mr Carberry,
many of the rural areas of the restrictive states operate largely on a "shall-issue" basis yet have passed state wide bans on other guns at the same time.
As long as our liberal "rulers" have the final say in who gets to keep and bear whatever they will have the upper hand. What we need is a full-throated declaration of the 2nd Amendment as a right and not some privilege to be applied for. If I remember correctly, Scalia indicated he wanted to do just that in the Heller case but Mr Heller (alas) did not make any such application.
As I said - and repeat - I applaud the spread of sensible CC laws. I have one myself and I wish those working to reform them all the best in their efforts. I simply don't want the "privilege" of packing some little hide-a-way while various historic and classic arms such as the M1 Carbine, FN-FAL or the full size Browning Hi-Power are banned.
and Irish and Jews and ...
actually anyone that wasn't wealthy or in the direct employ of someone wealthy
There's a carry lawsuit in progress in DC (Palmer) and they are counted in the 27/14%.
Thought Alaska had no CCW permit system: Citizens could carry on person and in vehicles without a permit.
Alaska does have a permit system, but it is mainly to allow their own residents to take advantage of reciprocity or recognition by other states. In order words, to let their citizens carry elsewhere.
And of those remaining 14%, the majority are in just a few major cities on the far Eastern coastlines of a few smallish states in the Northeast, where even their own "rural" counties are more shall-issue in practice.
Losing California (and Hawaii to a lesser extent) drives home that gun control is a parochial, provincial, Puritanical issue driven largely by a few Eastern big city busybodies.