Talk:Open carry in the United States

Terminology

It is also called "open display." was deleted for lack of cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.19.35 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska

Someone put this in the article, when it obviously belongs on the talk page. Godfrey Daniel (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"The first statement in this section is incorrect in stating that Nebraska has no mention of the keeping and bearing of arms in its Constitution. It is in the first paragraph! Obviously whomever posted this erroneous information has no idea that Nebraskans will not suffer their legislators attempting to deprive them of this inherent right. I quote the relevant information below.

Constitution of the State of Nebraska

Article I-1 Statement of rights.

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Sounds rather relevant to me, at least some of it. I don't suppose the useful parts could be worked into the article? Invmog (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Map

Map is wrong. Washington has full state pre-emption on all firearms laws. RCW 9.41.270 65.101.132.202 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps is very wrong. Added the Template:Contradict-other pointing to Concealed carry in the United States. I believe that is the correct map (as of 2006.) Matthew Glennon (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The map on this page is in need of an update, but it does not contradict the map on the Concealed carry in the United States page because that map deals exclusively with the issuance of permits for the carrying of concealed weapons. Laws regarding open carry are different. For example, Texas is a shall-issue state meaning they will issue a permit to anyone who meets the basic qualifications, however, the wearing of weapons in the open is prohibited even in the case of a person with a valid concealed carry permit. In Arizona, by contrast, any legally owned firearm may be carried in the open by almost anyone with very few restrictions, but concealed carry requires a permit. Alaska allows any carry, either open or concealed, by any legal gun owner with or without a permit. Therefore, I would suggest that, while the open carry map may need work, the contradiction template is not warranted at this time as the two maps are about different issues. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The map is in some ways ridiculous. Massachusetts is listed as a "green" state--open carry with license--but it is well known here that open carry will get you arrested on disturbing the peace (if anyone panics and calls 911 in fear) if not worse, and that such an arrest (without conviction) is sufficent to revoke your carry permit. Also, Boston has firearms laws that the Commonwealth does not, so pre-emption is not in effect in Mass. The brief disclaimer is not sufficently clear that, for some states at least, this map is misleading fantasy.--Icammd (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC) The map from open carry dot org refers to the open carry of handguns, but the definition for open carry used in wiki does not say handguns, it says firearms, which includes the classes of rifles, shotgun, sub machine guns and machine guns. The various states have different laws than what is portrayed on the map for various classes of firearms. There should be a LARGE disclaimer about using this map to determine the legality of open carry in a state or community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.63.11 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Open carry is technically legal with a CCW permit in Maryland, but getting a CCW is basically impossible for those without political connections, and attempting to open carry with a permit would most likely get it taken away. 204.108.8.5 (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ohio also has preemption, OC has been ruled as a constitutional right (state constitution), and HB347 pretty much granted preemption. Jmclark (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The map shows that Utah requires a permit to open carry but this is false anyone can open carry in Utah as long as the weapon is two steps from firing(pulling the trigger is one step) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.107.197.142 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The map is still pretty messed up. It shows Massachusetts as allowing "open carry with license," which is absolutely incorrect. Open carry in Mass may lead to revocation of your concealed carry license, and you also risk arrest. Vermont is shown as having pre-emptive open carry, but open carry in places like Rutland will get you hassled and possibly arrested, although the risk is less than in Mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.137.85 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if Massachusetts law enforcement officials are enforcing their opinions instead of the law as written, that is hardly the map's fault. The map is based on laws as written, which can be cited. Your concerns are not based on the laws as written, and you have provided no citations in support of your alleged 'risk of hassle or arrest'. It would be silly to add a disclaimer on Wikipedia for every legal action that one 'could' be arrested for. 75.139.33.114 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'Goldstar'

'Goldstar' is the definition of the site the map was taken from; I think a GPL-licensed map based on the blank templates and a new definition would be better to avoid both POVism and plagiarism. My first thought was 'unrestricted', but then again it's not really unrestricted since minors and felons still can't carry, so it'd be quite a misnomer. Any suggestions? --Joffeloff 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That pic should definitely be chnaged out. There's this one, but I'm unclear as to if it strictly pertains to the topic in question. It comes from the CCW article, but may not necessarily pertain directly to concealed carry. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a strong supporter of concealed and open carry, but yeah, that map and terminology really ought to be changed for WP. I understand it came from another site, but... still. I vote "unrestricted" with the fairly common sense assumption that minors and felons need not apply. Exigence 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The map and goldstar terminology have been replaced. Arthur 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This sort of discussion (practical law vs technical law) should be held in the Open Carry Forums, though I am ecstatic to see that the map was finally changed for the wiki. I say practical because many states will use "Disturbing the peace" as a catch-all law but THIS is not the place for that discussion, our objective here should be to make this article.

1.) More neutral, which I don't see as being possible because te NPOV tag was removed for awhile but most of the wiki-mods are anti-gun liberals so they will keep dogging this entry with NPOV. 2.) We need a world VIEW, so please someone with some knowledge, get us some data on open carry practices and laws in other countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.93.2 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

World map

Are there any maps which show open carry permissive from around the world? If so I would gladly post it . This article has an excellent beginning for US Open Carry law, someone shoudl really add something for Europe.

That's very easy, AFAIK it's forbidden everywhere but Switzerland (in which case the ammunition is four kilometres away from the weapon) and on Svalbard, where it's actually mandated. --Joffeloff 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends there are a number of place were open carry of long guns is allowed in unincorperated areas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.128.64 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Is the proper name for this practice 'open carry' or 'Open Carry'? The article was formerly located at Open carry, but was moved to Open Carry back in 2006. However, 'open carry' is used throughout the article. Unless anyone can demonstrate that 'Open Carry' is actually the technically correct name, I think it should be moved back, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Terraxos (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed back to lowercase. Open carry is an adjective/common noun construction, not a proper noun, therefore it should not be capitalized. Also, the article is, de facto, about open carry in the United States. It seems to me that is should be renamed as such to provide a counterpart the "Concealed carry in the United States" article. This would solve the narrow view issue while leaving the door open to anyone who might wish to follow with an "Open carry in Someotherplace" article. OlenWhitaker (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, move it to Open carry in the United States, and put out a request for a globalized "Open carry".

State constitutions section

I redid the whole section on state constitutions. It originally made the unsourced statement that twelve states constitutions contained protections for the open carry of firearms without quoting or citing any of them. In fact there are no state constitutions that contain the phrase "open carry," nor "carrying arms in the open," nor any remotely similar construction (yes, I did check all fifty of them.) It could be argued that open carry is implied in some constitutions, and it may be, but that is a subjective interpretation so I removed it and replaced it with purely factual data complete with appropriate footnotes and references. There's still room for imrpovement, but I think it's a start.--OlenWhitaker (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For many states, open carry is legal because there's no law that says it's illegal. You can do anything you want as long as there's not a law that says you can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.206.222 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The above poster is correct, I am adding an entry that will more adequately explain this. --63.149.19.35 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Maybe we should have a picture of someone open carrying in public, as an example that this does occur in some places. 24.179.34.94 (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the file ocfile.jpg. --Lordpoee (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Added one that's Creative Commons. ElizaBarrington (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war from unregistered users over photo is coming from folks on OpenCarry.org trying to push their organization, their discussion of it is here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=43585&forum_id=4&highlight=wikipedia They want to use a photo of a sexy woman, or a non-white minority, or a thin person, to push a "sexy" agenda of open carry and/or use a photo from their organization, when the photo used is fine, illustrates the concept as needed, and follows all Wikipedia requirements, including rights. ElizaBarrington (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just post another picture then and keep a "war" from happening? Here is another photo from the same person on commons with the same rights etc...in fact I believe its the same person in the picture just with no cap RightArmOfWyomingMichaelWDean-promo1-web.jpg {Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)}

Good point, Samurai, Done. ElizaBarrington (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC) ElizaBarrington, looks great....I do not think ANYONE can complain about this picture...hopefully! {Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)}

I can't complain about the picture, but the caption has the superfluous modifier "Hi Power" included. "Hi" (sic) power as compared to what? A Nerf(tm) gun? A Howitzer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.170.135 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you are refering to, I do not see any pictures that have such a caption. However, "Hi Power" in reference to guns may be referring to a specific model of gun Browning_Hi-Power rather than describing the guns actual "power". (The Hi Power was so named due to its relatively higher capacity at the time. No clue on why they spelled it that way). Gaijin42 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find the handgun in this photograph. If it is there, it is not immediately clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qelmasri (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (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) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick and blunt answer is that which is a human right does not require a rationale to exercise. As a citizen of the US, I argue that weapons carry as a right is essential in a society which defines government as by, for, and of the people.

It is a matter of statistics that armed private citizens prevent crime better in terms of volume and accuracy than any police force could hope to achieve. Both points are easily argued after a moment's thought; the private citizen can prevent (or the options thereof having been exhausted, stop in its tracks) crime more readily as they are most often the target of crime, and they can do it more accurately as they are the ones present when a crime is instigated. That is, a criminal forcibly making his intent known is more clearly obvious to the victim than to the policeman showing up several minutes after the fact trying to determine what has happened.

These are hardly the only justifications and are undoubtedly not the best, but they ought to at very least be food for thought. 96.241.231.212 (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point: In this generation there seems to be required some reason or rationale for owning a firearm. "I have a right to own a firearm." Isn't considered a "good enough" reason. It should be the best reason. --Lordpoee (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I cannot see Soylentyellow's question being answered here: Why does it matter whether a handgun is carried visibly to other people or not? There are some US states where one may get a concealed carry permission but is never allowed to carry it unconcealed. But what makes carrying a gun visibly more "dangerous" than carrying it invisibly? Do the legislature argue that an unconcealed gun may scare other people or something like that? As I am from Germany, where carrying and even owning of guns is strictly regulated, this legal field is something like "terra incognita" to me, so please apologize if this appears to be a stupid question.--SiriusB (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's two sides to the argument. Many people hold OC to be more dangerous than CC because of the assumption that the visible presence of a gun makes people nervous, and thus affects their actions. It is also considered to be counter-productive in serving as a deterrent to crime, as any potential criminal will know at a glance what persons are armed. Conversely, as great a number believe that not knowing that a gun is present robs it of the deterrent value, and prevents authorities from knowing that a gun is in the area. Thus, a supposedly "high-risk" region such as an aircraft, school, or prison is more difficult to secure if lawful concealed-carry is in effect, where, even if carry is permitted in that specific area, police would be better able to respond to an incident if they knew the weapon was there. (The legality of metal detectors and other forms of weapon searches is becoming more and more disputed in areas where CC is legal. Even in those few locations where schools are not "no-carry" zones, for example, metal detectors can be routinely used at the entrances.) It's quite a complicated debate. LordShonus (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shonus accurately covers the modern rationales used by people invested in the issue, but in therms of where the laws _come from_, the answer is a bit different. Basically, it's a difference in cultural norms. Every part of the US before the 20th century has a tradition of citizens carrying arms for self defense, but that tradition was practiced differently in different places. In some places a "good citizen" was expected to carry discreetly so as to avoid appearing aggressive, while only a blustering bully would carry openly. In other places, a "good citizen" carried openly because he had nothing to hide, while only a criminal would carry a "hidden gun" (a scare phrase our gun control groups are trying to make stick right now, actually). Those assumptions tended to influence regions' 20th century gun laws, the relics of which we're still dealing with today. Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In Alabama, for instance, concealed carry was outlawed in the 19th century. The act doing so made reference to "the evil practice of bearing arms secretly". An 1840 Alabama Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of the act, with the court stating a clear preference for open carry. "Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence[sic]." Of course, it is foolish to believe that a concealed firearm cannot be used for self defense, but it is a clear sign of the beliefs of that time period. 75.139.33.114 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OP here, just to clarify my question: If you are/were pro gun and you had to chose, would you rather chose open carry or concealed carry? (I just assume that you'd want both open and concealed carry if you are pro gun, but just assume you would have to chose, which would it be and why?)

Or is it more a thing of personal preference, i.e. like which color is your favorite and why?

Or is it simply a cultural norm/history thing as Elmo suggested (the good guys have nothing to hide, therefore carry openly vs. the good guys don't want to intimidate therefore practice concealed carry). BTW, thanks Shonus and Elmo, your answers are the most helpful.--Soylentyellow (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I teach permit to carry here in Minnesota. I address this in my class, as both open and concealed are legal here. If you carry openly, you can act as a deterrent (of course, it also makes anti-gun people ver nervous, and some jerks just want to do that), and there is a measurable benefit there. However, I carry concealed, and I recommend that my students do the same, for a very simple reason. If nobody knows I have my gun, then I am not target #1 if someone is NOT deterred. Think about it. If you're standing somewhere carrying openly, and someone is going to start something anyway, then the first thing they are going to do is take downthe known threat, and they have the element of surprise on their side. Also (and this happened to a buddy of mine), if you carry concealed you have a CHOICE as to whether or not you respond to a situation. He out when a situation went down, another bystander looked at him, saw his weapon on his hip (carried openly) when they hit the floor, and shouted out "Hey! You have a gun! Do something!" Rapier (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't ever forget the 'jerks' that are willing to take the risk of being shot first, so that you can take the time to decide if you really want to become involved. As for the 'element of surprise', criminals will always have that because they are the ones acting offensively. What you are referring to is a Counterattack. 75.139.33.114 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Soylent, briefly, most people in my experience prefer to carry concealed because they don't want to draw attention to their guns, have problems with anti-gunners or uninformed police, or color their interactions with people who are (rightly or wrongly) intimidated by a holstered gun. Every time I've personally heard of a person carrying openly, it's been to make a political statement about our right to carry; because local laws restrict concealed carry in some way; or because carrying concealed would be uncomfortable or impractical. Some states, like California, severely restrict concealed carry, leaving open carry the only option. Other states require a permit to carry concealed but not to carry openly; a person may open carry to avoid the hassle and expense. And concealing a full-sized handgun requires a cover garment (like an overshirt or jacket) to cover the gun and holster; in many parts of the US, that would be stiflingly hot. In short, the overall preference is for concealed carry, but there are cases in which open carry is more practical. Personally, I'm not comfortable carrying openly, but have no problem with those who do. Elmo iscariot (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New sections: Open carry around the world

I've added some details to the new stub, with references. Feel free to add to this. I suppose that as these sections grow, they should be better organized by region (Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc.) Alpha sort by country name? Help! Trasel (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Selective Quotes of McGrath

A new editor has injected some serious NPOV by quoting McGrath's book out of context. That editor has TWICE deleted valid quotes from McGrath. Only ONE CHAPTER of McGrath's book is available online (the one on Vigilantism), and perhaps why that editor might have mistakenly though the original quote (removed) was not accurate, McGrath found that the OVERALL crime rates in the west WERE lower than today's, but the rough and tumble mining towns like Bodie and Aurora were the exception. Please stop removing properly referenced quotes and injecting POV, or you will soon come up against the three revert rule, and you will be banned.Trasel (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Trasel, and thank you for your welcoming message on my talk page. Obviously you and I have differing opinions about the public safety ramifications of open carry laws, so this is a great opportunity for us to work together to create an entry that has a neutral point of view (NPOV) and is verifiable, despite our philosophical differences. Let's not get into an edit war.

Let me also admit right here that the reason for my edit change was a perception on my part that there existed a POV that was not supported by the reference that was provided. McGrath is a supporter of gun rights, but it is interesting that his own data indicates homicide rates were significantly higher in frontier towns of the old West where open carry was the custom.

I agree with you that I "injected some serious NPOV" on the page (NPOV is a *good* thing), but I don't think I quoted the book out of context. I was not able to find your "wild and wooly" quote in my copy of McGrath's book, though I did find it in an opinion piece he wrote for freerepublic.com. I would recommend that the quote be properly referenced to the freerepublic.com site, or please edit the reference and provide the page number in the book so that it is verifiable.

I see you added the sentence "But McGrath pointed out that mining camps and mining town were the exception to the rule in an otherwise relatively peaceful west" and here you state that "McGrath found that the OVERALL crime rates in the west WERE lower than today's, but the rough and tumble mining towns like Bodie and Aurora were the exception." Can you please provide some fact-based quotes from McGrath's book that support this assertion? It appears to me that the important point here is that the mining towns represent an example of places where open carry was a common practice. In those towns, homicide rates were higher, but other crime rates were lower.

I am going to re-instate this quote which you deleted: McGrath states that "while the carrying of guns probably reduced the incidence of robbery, burglary, and theft, it undoubtedly increased the number of homicides." I think that this is the crucial point that McGrath is making; the incidence of violent crimes in the frontier towns were generally lower where open carry was a common practice, with the important exception of the homicide rate, which was significantly higher. To that end, I would recommend that the word "murder" be removed from the statement: "the rates of murder, robbery, rape, and other assorted violent crimes in the western United States were lower". However, I am not going to make that change at this point, as that would be a revert, and I do not want to violate the 3 revert rule. Perhaps we can leave that decision to another editor, rather than engage in an edit war over this single word. (insert embarrassed smiley here). (PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

I concur with you in part, and I agree that your additional quote from McGrath is relevant. I don't have my own copy of McGrath's book, so I think that I'll order one, for more ready access. My only disagreement with your latest edit is your assertion that open cary was not common throughout the old west. It unquestionably was. I'll correct that, and add applicable references.

Thanks for being amicable and civil about this. My goal is a more thorough, balanced piece. With Sincerity, Trasel (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the source so forgive me if I err, but the statement that "the rates of murder, robbery, rape, and other assorted violent crimes in the western United States were lower" is not incompatible with "the incidence of violent crimes in the frontier towns were generally lower where open carry was a common practice, with the important exception of the homicide rate, which was significantly higher", because homicide and murder aren't synonyms. _If_ the overall crime rate was generally lower because people were able to defend themselves with deadly force, _then_ the homicide rate could easily be higher due to the number of justifiable homicides in self defense. That is, the _murder_ rate can be lower even as the _homicide_ rate is higher, when peaceful people have effective means of self defense.

If the source is clearly talking about a higher rate of _murders_ in open-carry jurisdictions than in concealed-carry jurisdictions, then by all means we must represent that result accurately. But be careful about conflating a homicide rate with a murder rate; it's an easy mistake to make, and one that we in the US are especially vigilant about, as it's so enthusiastically encouraged by our gun control groups.  ;) Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Open carry revival in the early 21st century

This section looks good, but I have a neutrality concern - specifically, since we have quotes from the individuals involved in these incidents, can we put in reactions from others, including those who opposed their actions? Regardless of our own POVs, it's important to provide a balanced account. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Any on-topic quote is relevant to this wiki article, as long as it is properly referenced. Go for it! All sides should be represented. Trasel (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Now to dig through the media fluff to find actual good information. :) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 16:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a recent news item reference, if anyone would carry to summarize it: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14361484?nclick_check=1 ( I'm swamped and have been bringing work home to work on in the evenings, so I wouldn't be able to put this up for a week or more.) Thanx. Trasel (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of OpenCarry.org link

I'd opt for putting that back in, the OpenCarry.org forum really is the main go-to site for people who open carry, and moreover, the main page has links to updated maps of where open carry (and other related gun carry, such as open carry in vehicles and at colleges) are legal.

Just my two cents. ElizaBarrington (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a map could be used from there with permission. Invmog (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think linking the site, with a mention of maps, is best, because the maps change when laws change. If we just put up a map, we'd have to keep on top of it and change it if the file name ever changed. ElizaBarrington (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, so what you're saying is that we should reinsert the link or maybe even make brief mention of the website and its maps on the actual article itself. Sounds good to me. Invmog (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If they maintain an up to date map, then why re-invent the wheel??? It is a lot easier for us to keep a link updated than it would be to make regular updates to a locally-hosted map. Trasel (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Trasel, so let's just keep the link (a.k.a. restore the link.) Invmog (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to be a consensus, and GB Fan never replied on my talk page, I have returned the link. ElizaBarrington (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool; thanks. Invmog (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Open Carry in context outside the United States

Hi everyone. I agree with the comment from 2/2008 above that this article makes more sense as a US-focused article, as a parallel article to concealed carry. I didn't see any objection to focusing it on the U.S. Shall I proceed? --PFS (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this too, and the term "Open Carry" seems to be exclusively used in context of the United States. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. One major problem with the content focusing on other countries is there is no description of their regulations or laws concerning open carry. The sources seem to be almost randomly chosen articles that mention men carrying weapons. The distinction as to whether they are doing so lawfully - or as criminals - however, is quite important, and this article has nothing to say on that topic. Currently "Concealed Carry in the United States" stands as its own article, this one should, too. Some rewriting to focus more on actual regulations - and to provide a balanced perspective about the controversy surrounding "Open Carry events," particularly at political events - would also help strengthen this article considerably. Forward Thinkers (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I checked about a dozen of the articles used as citations for countries other than the United States, and I could not find one that used the term "open carry", or "carrying weapons". In general the cited articles use terms like "the gun issue"[1], "civilian gun arsenal"[2], "availability and use of small arms"[3], "illegal firearms"[4] and the like. To characterize those citations in the "Open Carry around the world" section as being articles discussing "Open Carry" is plainly improper synthesis. Indeed, I question whether the title of the section in founded on reliable sourcing, or if the entire section is synthesized original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I will focus the article on open carry in the U.S. This article has a rating of START, which means it could use more organization. I was just looking at Concealed Carry in the U.S., and I see a suggestion for an organizing structure. I suggest adopting the same logical structure for this article. --PFS (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a chance to do more checking the seventy four references purporting to be documenting "open carry around the world" section. After checking about twenty, I have yet to find even a single reference that uses the term "open carry" in description of global gun use. And most, while describing gun use, don't distinguish between concealed carry and open carry. This entire section seem hopeless riddled with improper synthesis. Probably the prudent thing is to temporarily move that section off the article main space and put it here to the talk page so that we can work on verifying the references. After it gets fixed we can move it back. There are far too many failed verifications among those 78 citations. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would seem to be a reasonable idea. I agree with others who think this article would work best as "Open Carry in the United States," particularly given that "Open Carry" seems to be an issue in the U.S. and nowhere else (as a legal or policy matter, at least). I have checked several of the sources for the international content in this article and several sources seem to be randomly selected. I could not find any that spoke of how the law in those countries regulates the open carrying of firearms in public, which really is the most relevant issue here. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I have moved the "Open carry around the world" section to this talk page for discussing, and fixing, and after fixing we can then move it back to the article. See below. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I affirm this change. Better to fix it here in the talk section and then move it back once the referencing is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

POV section and dubious sourcing

I just templated Open_carry#Open_carry_around_the_world with POV and failed verification templates. "[Europe], where gun owners are often denigrated and maligned by both government leaders and fellow citizens" is clearly unacceptable and not in the sources given. "with many of them dating back to World War II" - I could not find that in the source given, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read through the referenced articles before summarily slapping a POV tag on this. Reference # 51 [5] talks about european gun owners being maligned. So does reference #49 [}

References # 53 and #54 BOTH mention guns hidden since World War-II. This piece can be improved with just further references, and more precise wording. FordLincolnMercury (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, ref 51 (the Guardian article) does not talk about European gun owners being maligned, and neither doe 49 (the Independent article). Both are somewhat critical of gun ownership or hunting - that's something entirely different. Characterizing this reporting as "maligning" is strong and unjustified POV, and lifting it to the meta-level is unacceptable synthesis.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a previous editor that put in his synthesis "maligned", so I've replaced it with "distrusted", which is well-supported by the new references that I've just added. FordLincolnMercury (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is seriously POV because it is transparently written on the underlying assumption of a universal human right to carry guns. There is no such universal right, and there are no evil Europeans infringing on such a right. Hans Adler 16:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, here is what a corresponding paragraph in naturism could look like:

Worldwide, people are naked in the privacy of their homes, but national and local nudity laws vary widely. In some countries, public nudity has a long-standing tradition, is legal, and is still a commonplace sight at public beaches or for breastfeeding. But elsewhere, such as in parts of the United States, laws have been enacted that illegalize public nudity unconditionally and require registration for non-public nude beaches. Social stigma is also a factor in America, where nude hikers are often distrusted by both government leaders and fellow citizens. Millions of people meet in private homes to be nude together, often in saunas.

Hans Adler 16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good illustration, this entire article suffers from the implicit framing of the topic as a natural human right. The fact that some people hold this point of view is undisputed, but our duty is to write an article that describes this point of view from a neutral second party perspective, not a first person "everybody knows this" perspective. Indeed, this topic is challenging because even the article title appears coined to project and frame this assumption. A smart way to approach the problem of fixing this article would to be to see if we can find some neutral third party sources discussing this topic. I will try to look around and find some, but a quick search reveals that the large bulk of sourcing talking of "open carry" appears to be political advocacy press and blog, which is not neutral or third party. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a few additions to this article, primarily to the Recent Open Carry Events section. It seemed a conscious effort had been made there to hide anti-government comments made by some open carry protesters, including Chris Broughton and William Kostric. I tried to provide a more balanced view of how these and other protesters have explained the practice. Also moved the "Constitutional Implications" section to a new heading outside the State Law area to include comment on the U.S. Constitution and federal courts. Forward Thinkers (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that my changes in the Recent Open Carry Events section where reverted. Again, this seems like a deliberate effort to portray individuals like William Kostric and Chris Broughton as moderate actors and to hide their numerous public statements about the ideology that drove them to bring loaded guns to events where the president was present. My material here was properly sourced (in many cases directly sourced to their video, radio and internet comments) and these individuals' ties to extremist groups have been well-documented, including by the Southern Poverty Law Center.Forward Thinkers (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points. Clearly, an insurrectionist theme is seen in much of the reliable sourcing as central to the Open Carry movement. Water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, etc.. See especially the guardian.co.uk article and the NYTimes.com references. I think the article needs to give appropriate coverage to this. Though, I am not sure that the structure of a "list of events" is the best method to covey this structurally. Also, using third party reliable sources would be much preferable to using direct sourcing to youtube, etc. I will go refresh myself about MOS:LISTS and do some thinking. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Moved from article -> Open carry around the world

There are millions of privately owned guns, in the majority of countries (see: List of countries by gun ownership, for details), but national and local gun laws vary widely. In some countries, open carry has a long-standing tradition, is legal, and is still a commonplace sight in rural areas, as part of "strong hunting traditions." But elsewhere, such as in most of Europe except Finland and Switzerland, laws have been enacted to require registration of firearms. Social stigma is also a factor in Europe, where gun owners are often distrusted by both government leaders and fellow citizens. Tens of millions of guns are held privately and kept hidden in defiance of registration laws in Europe, with many of them dating back to World War II. But, obviously, those cannot be carried publicly or taken to a public shooting range.

In some countries, firearms laws are consciously and even contemptuously ignored by the citizenry, who see the right to own and carry firearms as a traditional right that pre-dates the advent of government. The latter is typified in the Philippines and in Yemen, where there are millions of unregistered firearms, and where provincial law enforcement officers often make no attempt to enforce national firearms laws, with many considering the laws intrusive and dictatorial.

Open carry in Africa

The private ownership and open carry of small arms is commonly seen in a number of African countries including Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan., Uganda, and Zambia. In Somalia, boys as young as nine years old are seen carrying loaded guns. The reasons for the proliferation of arms vary, but often include self-defense, hunting, and protection of livestock. In some African countries such as Kenya and Rwanda, owning and carrying guns is done in defiance of national laws.

In some cases villagers carry small arms to protect themselves from marauding bands of soldiers, lions, and even against genocide.

Open carry in Asia

In Afghanistan weapon ownership is common some of the rural and border states and union territories of India, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan (in flagrant disobedience to the "public display" ban enacted in 2000), Sri Lanka, the predominantly Kurdish provinces of Turkey, and Yemen. In Iraq, doctors may carry guns for self-protection.

Open carry in Latin America

Open carry of firearms is fairly common, and predominantly a practice of middle and upper class residents in the rural regions of many Central American and South American countries, primarily for self-defense. Doing so is legal in most Latin American jurisdictions, but laws on registration and vehicular carry vary widely. Open carry is rare in cities, where concealed carry is more commonplace. These countries include Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

Open carry in Oceania

Some citizens of the Pacific Islands fairly regularly carry guns, usually for self protection and for hunting wild game, including fruit bats. These nations include East Timor (where a ban is in effect, but widely flouted, and a law allowing legal ownership has been proposed), Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,, and the Solomon Islands. In East Timor, where somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians (about one-third of the population) were killed on a genocidal scale, there is a division of opinion. Some idealists want to try to disarm the country, while others see privately-owned firearms as insurance that another invasion and genocide won't be again attempted. The Australian reported "Almost all the ammunition and more than half the firearms of East Timor's national police force are missing. Unaccounted for, according to a security analyst, are more than half the 3,000 Glock 9mm pistols issued to the 3,400-member police force (PNTL), whose authority has ceased to exist in Dili. More than half the PNTL's 400 Steyr assault rifles and Heckler & Koch HK-33 assault rifles, 160 of 200 FNC assault rifles and all F-2000 assault rifles issued to police bodyguard units are also missing." Many of these guns ended up in the hands of gangs, but many others are being held by otherwise law-abiding citizens as "[anti-]genocide insurance." In the Philippines, some news reporters carry guns.

New Photo

Now that there is a better photo, I recommend that the discordant "snowball" photo be deleted. BobbieCharlton (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. ElizaBarrington (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about this the Open Carry Around the World passage

As discussed above, this Open Carry Around the World. Probably the first thing to do is to methodically go through those sources and see if any can be found that actually mention "open carry" in context of the world other than the USA. I will give that a start, and welcome collaboration. And, for what it is worth, the metawiki software gave the pink spam block for the five or six pointers to examiner.com, as being blacklisted. So, as a workaround, I munged those URLs. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at these references, and at the references in the main article, I am having trouble finding the basic source, that being any neutral third party source discussing the origin of the term "open carry". There are a number of number of newspaper article about open carry demonstrations, but is there an academic journal or a history book or a social science paper or something that simply describes the history of Open Carry from a neutral and non-political perspective? Help please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing a Google Archive news search, it appears that the term "open carry" did not enter the lexicon until September 1987. Can anyone else find the term "open carry" used with the meaning described in this article prior to the Florida 'open carry' gun law that went into effect Oct 1, 1987? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source bibliography?

Doing some foundation work, I am trying to pull together a bibliography. Looking for books that are describing "open carry" as a social phenomena in an academic neutral viewpoint, and I am having trouble finding any. (As opposed to news reports of open carry events, or political advocacy writings.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are two that come closest, the first by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and the second by an outspoken gun rights advocacy author published by Regnery Publishing, which is hardly neutral. It would be better to find something by a University Press, or the like:

• Doherty, Brian. Gun Control on Trial. Washington: Cato Institute, 2008. (page 79)
• Lott, John. Freedomnomics. Washington: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007. (page 85)

Who is F.J.K.

The link[6] to the www.saf.com website (presently shows as footnote 24) ostensibly points to a 1950 University of Pennsylvania Law Review article written by someone F.J.K.. It seems necessary to identify the person writing this article, anyone know who F.J.K. might be? Also, while the SAF provides a service with these "reprints" of theirs, they do not authorize their use for "citational use" and we should probably be respecting their explicit limitation. Can someone check this source? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this, who is the anonymous author "F.J.K." of the paper? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of USACarry.com link

If we are linking to OpenCarry.org then we should also link to USACarry.com which is a similar site and has just as much information. Kahman (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the policy here external links are not advised just because a site is similar or has just as much information. Also, when I checked 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 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 do NOT have an account at USACarry.com but I checked it out and I think we should add it in. It has an even higher alexa rating than OpenCarry.org and has similar, but additional information. Omitting it would be like saying "we should link Time but not Newsweek on the article about Mainstream Media." ElizaBarrington (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Still, as near as I can tell USACarry.com is owned by a corporation called i156 Inc. which seems also to be the parent corporation of a manufacture of handgun holsters. I can understand from a marketing perspective why a corporation like that would like to encourage as many people as possible to carry handguns, it would be good for holster sales. That said, I don't think it would be a good idea to help with the promotion of sales of their holsters by including a link to their website from Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN and "Open Carry in History" section

In the last few weeks I have been reading every third party reliable source I could find on this topic, as we should per WP:V. What is apparent from the entirety of this body of sourcing is that when this sourcing uses the term "open carry" they are speaking of the "open carry movement" with the earliest mention occurring in Florida in late 1987 surrounding open carry demonstrations related to some state legislation at that time. What is missing (that I can see) in the third party reliable sourcing is any mention of the history of open carry going back to Africa, or back to the Wild West period. Yet, this article makes the case that "open carry" is implicitly linked to a history in ancient Africa and the Wild West. That seems to me as WP:SYN, seemingly intended as improper advocacy to give the Open Carry movement legitimacy as having a longer history. Unless someone can find third party reliable sourcing that dates the open carry history back beyond the origins seen in 1987, I suggest that we delete the Open Carry History section per WP:SYN. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive Conflict of Interest in Editing

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 now claims to be just "tweaking NPOV". 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. This sort of meddling by paid lobbyists 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) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One admin here tells you that making unsubstantiated claims like this violates WP:BLP and WP:NPA. If you have any substantial material, the correct place to bring it is WP:COIN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my defense. I strongly object to these false accusations and attacks on my character. Also, I will come to the defense of ForwardThinkers now, pointing out that the biggest requirement of WP:COI is full disclosure, and the disclosure of ForwardThinkers has been full and transparent. The second requirement of WP:COI is strict adherence to WP:Policy and this too has been practiced meticulously by ForwardThinkers. In contrast to the anonymous unfounded attacks made by AnonIP. Indeed the personal and political interests of this AnonIP are self evident and appear directly in conflict with the goal of writing an Encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented on this over on Concealed Carry - seems like an unwarranted attack to me. The rules of Wiki take care of these kinds of problems. Let's get to improving the text. There is much work to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink fuzzy slippers (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Other weapons

The article seems focused exclusively on firearms. Is that what the laws are about? What if I carry a claymore on my back, or a cutlass on my belt?

Snow (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A claymore would be prohibited for open carry anywhere in the USA because it's considered a "destructive device" and therefore forbidden for civilian possession or use by federal law.

In general, a "destructive device" is a weapon that cannot be aimed at one particular person, and is therefore not useful for targeted self-defense without killing or injuring innocent bystanders, unlike a gun, which can target one particular person.

I don't know about cutlass (sword) laws, but open carry of sheathed knives is extremely common in some states. In several of the mountain West states in the USA, somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of all adult males carry a knife on their belt. (not with the blade exposed, but visible, and certainly discernible as a knife.) It's usually carried primarily as a tool, not a weapon, but can certainly work as a weapon.

I would not be opposed to including a bit on knives in the open carry article, since they can be used for self-defense, and they're the weapon most often open carried (MUCH more so than guns).

If you want to add the section, this would be a good resource for open carry of knife info for USA: Knife laws of the 50 states: http://home.netcom.com/~brlevine/sta-law.htm ElizaBarrington (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Eliza - should've been a bit more clear - when I said "claymore on my back", I meant Claymore, not Claymore. Hope that clears it up. --Snow (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see now!....well, I could certainly still see the usefulness of a non-gun section here. ElizaBarrington (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love for there to be a section for arms other than firearms, but to put it bluntly, it would be next to impossible. The patchwork of different gun laws across the nation is nothing compared to the myriad 'weapons' statutes at the county and city level. I would like to see a discussion about how the right to bear arms has been restricted to simply a right to bear firearms, but that is beyond the scope of this article. 75.139.33.114 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Help?

Ok, I was trying to edit Concealed carry and noticed that about 1/4 of the text was about open cary of weapons in Canada. First I tried to comment on it in the talk page, except there isn't any, it's redirecting to concealed carry in the US (like if the rest of the world didn't have any) Next I wanted to add a Template:Off-topic to it mentioning that it had info about open carry was included in the concealed carry article, except there isn't an open carry article as it's redirecting to open carry in the US...
Hello guys, I have nothing against the US, but it isn't the whole world, and from my point of view anyway you can only talk about the US part of general topics like open/hidden carrying of guns as a sub-topic of the rest of the world instead of the rest of the world being a sub-topic of the US...
Anyway, without an open carrying article to reefer to I don't really know how to deal with the article in question because I don't want to edit it myself for various reasons...
Category:Gun_politics_by_country might be informative when it comes to open/hidden carrying by the way...
Anyway, with the topics in question generally being rather hotly debated I'm going to just leave this all up to you guys to clean up in all of this...
Myself I have a paper I have to write for the uni in the next few days...
Good luck all :-)
Luredreier (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the talk page linking redirect. I haven't figured out what happened, but i'll do my best to sort it out. Sperril (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue in Philadelphia should be noted - Mark Fiorino

I wanted to add something to the Open Carry Demonstrations/Events section, but really wasn't sure how to word it to fit.

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/ - After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

"The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention."

• http://www.examiner (dot) com/family-issues-in-national/licensed-citizen-carrying-open-gun-is-hassled-by-police -

Licensed citizen carrying open gun is hassled by police

"A few weeks ago and 25 year old man carrying a gun on his hip for self-defense was confronted by a police officer in Philadelphia and covered him with his own drawn gun.

Mark Fiorino, age 25, tried to explain to the officer that he had a license to carry the gun and could show him the permit.

The officer was taking no chances and told him it was illegal to carry the gun and that he didn’t know who he was.

The conversation continued and was being recorded. This is argument in defense of people being able to video and record policemen and is considered the only way to fight back against police abuse of power.

Mr. Fiorino was in an AutoZone store when he heard the policemen speak to him and when he turned around, the policeman was holding a gun on him."

• http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Has-Exposed-Gun-in-Phila-Charged-121932474.html - Man Has Exposed Gun in Phila., Charged

"“Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?” Dougherty asks, according to the YouTube clip. Fiorino responds, “Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms. ... It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive.”

After some profanity-laced back-and-forth, other officers responded to Dougherty's calls for backup. Fiorino was forced to the ground as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to carry his gun openly. He had his permit on him, along with his driver's license."

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA - Video of Incident (Youtube) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathsythe (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

editing oklahoma

I would update Oklahoma's status, but it also involves changing the art. 98.160.107.10 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Illinois

In the current version of the article, the Notes column for Illinois says, "The legality of open carry in Illinois is currently unclear...." and then goes on to talk about People v. Aguilar, citing a Daily Caller article. That's incorrect, open carry is generally prohibited in Illinois. I'm going to change the article, and add a reference or two. As to Aguilar, it struck down an Illinois law that prohibited both concealed and open carry. But now that concealed carry is allowed in Illinois, Aguilar does not affect open carry, which is still illegal. Of course if a reliable third-party reference can be provided that states otherwise, I'd be open to further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Terminology section needs citation

It has nary a one, unless I'm missing something. Given that some of the definitions assume specific uses of more general terms, we really need to sources these. I don't think these are universally understood definitions that would be commoonplace enough to avoid references.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

confused

I'm confused but from Australia so please bear with my maybe very simple question. The amendment refers to the 'right to bear arms' but everything seems to be linked to firearms only. I ask this question because when I was in Central America a few years ago every man in rural areas carried their daily toll of trade; a machete. So the question I ask is, in the open carry states in the USA, does the 'arms' I carry have to be a firearm or can it be other weapons such as a machete; or even weapons used at the time of the amendment such as swords or bayonets. ```` user:johnscotaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnscotaus (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Michigan Open Carry Incident

The following passage only has a primary source. Can anyone offer a secondary source for notability?--Nowa (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

* On January 30, 2010, members of Michigan Open Carry were eating at a local Ponderosa Steakhouse in Lansing, Michigan when local police responded and forced them to leave. A person rumored to be a United States Marine was carrying an AR-15 at this open carry event. A brief verbal argument ensued between the leader of the open carry group and the Lansing Police Department. No arrests were made; some of the law enforcement officers at the scene were given reprimands for their actions arising from the incident.

Notes

Arkansas Disputed

I removed the Arkansas disputed tag because the dispute seems to be based solely on a non-binding opinion about a very narrow area of the law by the Attorney General. There have been numerous open carry events in Arkansas that have received media coverage with no arrests whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.102.138 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

OC in NON-State Areas of USA

You need to add info re. OC in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Island, like Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States. All of those are NO Open Carry acc to their Wiki gun law entries (Guam is UNK re. OC), and thus ripe targets for future federal lawsuits.

Phantom in ca (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories of law

Where did the terms in the "Categories of law" come from? Lightbreather (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrations and events

The "Demonstrations and events" section seems overdone. In fact, it seems like a violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and an inappropriate use of WP:EMBED. Of course there are demonstrations by open carry activists. There are also demonstrations by those opposed to open carry. I suggest turning this section into prose, mentioning a few notable events for and against open carry. Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire and other states

Why is New Hampshire listed as anomalous? As far as I know, it is a fully open carry state, no license except in vehicles. A number of other states could use explanations as well because they are probably open carry, but its vague. Like Nebraska appears to be fully open carry, but its constitutional not a clear statute.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed Objective Reason (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Long gun open carry.

We should make a table on the statewide legality of long gun open carry as well. 173.169.17.102 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822175508/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hctDBUKMR4V-lGBrEQcYNO0ooBQAD9A4TG402 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hctDBUKMR4V-lGBrEQcYNO0ooBQAD9A4TG402

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160207213442/http://www.opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/ to http://www.opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania - Anomalous -> Licensed

I have updated Pennsylvania to Licensed. Open carry is legal without a license statewide, except in Philadelphia and in a vehicle, where a License to Carry Firearms is required. In reality the state should be somewhere between Permissive and Licensed, but definitely not Anomalous. I hope to update the map soon unless anyone else gets to is first. Zeus ^{t | u | c} 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zeus: I think anomalous is more appropriate. Anomalous means it varies based on where you are, and it does (i.e. in Philly or outside Philly). Terrorist96 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Open carry in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218231659/http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_2157ecea-907b-5e29-8c80-3a6538572eb5.html to http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_2157ecea-907b-5e29-8c80-3a6538572eb5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040540/http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html to http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822130558/http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/25952317/right-to-protest-with-a-gun.htm to http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/25952317/right-to-protest-with-a-gun.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040540/http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html to http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2015-064.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Map Changes

I'm wondering if the map could be modified for states like Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Colorado where only a single jurisdiction in the entire state (Denver, Omaha, Philadelphia) has different open carry laws by representing those cities as a circle with the rest of the state being the color, with Missouri, Oregon and Iowa still being the same still remaining the same since several jurisdictions

Also theoretically Illinois is a anomalous state since under state law a county has the power to permit open carry.

Though I do have a question in that should anomalous even be a category since in the only two states that has laws to that effect, California and Illinois, I have yet to find a single county in either state that allows for open carry under the state law.

Other than that I believe that the colors on the map should be changed where Green is permissive, yellow-green is rural permissive, yellow is licensed, orange is anomalous, and red is non-permissive.

Also we should figure out how to properly depict North Dakota as it's law is truly anomalous in that it is permissive for daytime, but licensed for night time. --Thegunkid (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding PA, NE, CO, that would be too confusing and clutter the map. Plus, it is arbitrary to change those but not MO, OR, and IA. Regarding IL, I have not seen anything that says open carry is allowed if a locality allows it. State law specifically bans all carriage of firearms then exempts those with a concealed carry permit, which requires the firearm to be fully or partially concealed. Regarding CA, even if not a single county allows it, they theoretically could, so it's best to leave it alone. Regarding changing the colors, I think having yellow-green, yellow, and orange would be hard to distinguish. Regarding ND, it's only permissive during the day if you're carrying unloaded. Need a license to open carry a loaded handgun regardless of the time of day. Terrorist96 (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it's mainly because the difference is in PA, NE, and CO it's ONE jurisdiction, and ONE single jurisdiction in the entire state that prohibits open carry; which makes the "Allowed in Rural Areas" description a major misnomer consideirng the fact I under Pennsylvania and Colorado law can legally open carry a handgun, without a license, in the city of Pittsburgh, or Colorado Springs, which clearly are not rural areas by any measure. Whereas in MO and Oregon, it's several cities spread out among the state (well Oregon it's actually only the counties in the Portland Metro Area excluding Yamhill County), for example, in both states, you must be licensed to open carry in the Largest, and Second cities, but the third cities of both states, Springfield and Eugene, I don't need a license to open carry; despite them still being sizable cities.

As for Illinois, I was mistaken; Under section 10 of Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons; it's theoretically legal to open carry outside of village, city or town limits as technically the main prohibition on carrying a handgun in Illinois, which is section 4 of that law, only applies to concealed handguns. Again, this is purely theoretical; Much like it's theoretically possible to get a carry permit in Hawaii, or trying to use the blanket reciprocity the U.S. Virgin Islands has under their law. --Thegunkid (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

PA applies to any city with over 1 million population, so over time other cities could be included. The idea behind permissive rural is that the state does not have full preemption (or has exceptions built in) so the law can forbid open carry depending on jurisdiction (even if it's just a single jurisdiction in the entire state). I'm willing to change the wording if you can think of a better label. Regarding Illinois, every source says open carry is illegal. I can see how you can read section 4 and 10 together and gather that open carry could theoretically be allowed in unincorporated places but it's unclear whether the prohibition on public streets/alleys applies to all or only those within corporate limits and I'm not sure if any Courts have interpreted that.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How about Permissive Carry With Local Restrictions? That seems to be the best description since the only state that actually fits the description of "Permissive Rural Carry" would be Iowa. Illinois law is so technical and confusing on this even the Attorney General in the lead up to the conceal carry case in the 7th Circuit declared the lawsuit moot because open carry was legal outside of city limits under Sec 24-1, thus the ban on conceal carry wasn't unconstitutional; then she quickly went and filed a motion to admend that argument stating eventhough it was legal under Sect 24-1, it's still illegal under Sec. 24-1.6 Agg. Unlawful Use of a Weapon; Yet there hasn't been any rulings on this in the state courts which I would like to see since a straight reading of Agg. Unlawful Weapons doesn't provide that since section 1 is depended on it being concealed, and section 2 is depended on it being within a incorporate area. --Thegunkid (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And back to the Map colors, I still believe license carry should be Yellow, and anomalous should be Orange; since traditionally Blue is considered to be softer than Green. --Thegunkid (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How does it look now?Terrorist96 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yellow is a little bright, perhaps #F1BF00? --Thegunkid (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That is too close to the orange for California. Also, regarding your edit on American Samoa, I cannot find a source that says handguns are banned. That would violate the Heller decision. List of laws. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(c) A license shall be issued only for the ownership and possession of 12, 16, 20 and 410 gauge shotguns and shotgunshells and 22 caliber rifles and their ammunitions. [...] No license shall be issued for the sale of arms other than shotguns and .22 caliber rifles as set out in 46.4221 (c) and ammunition therefor. [...] (c) Unless otherwise authorized, only those shotguns and rifles referred to in section 46.4221(c) A.S.C.A., may be imported with license.; And actually upon further research under 46.4229 if you owned a handgun before 1991 and you've kept the license valid not only can you still own handguns, you can actually technically aquire new ones if Commissioner of Public Safety signs off on it; That said 46.4203 Unlawful use of weapons only makes it illegal to carry concealed firearms; thus open carry of grandfathered handguns would be perfectly legal. --Thegunkid (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Permit v License

Some states issue permits, some issue licenses. We should not replace all instances of "license" with "permit" when that state issues licenses.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm.. There appears to be some ambiguity in WP about this which ought to be resolved. The Firearms license article, as I read it, seems to imply that the two terms are equivalent. Googling around, I found some web pages offering info about differences between them (e.g., [7], [8], [9]), but none of these would be considered WP:Reliable Sources. This Google Books search turned up some sources with more info, but I didn't see anything there which I would be comfortable in citing in support of an assertion about the difference between licenses and permits in laws regulating firearms in the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It depends I've actually compiled a list of all the state CCW's, and out of them 27 issue a Permit, 23 issue a License, 8 of them state weapon, 6 state firearms, 34 state concealed, 13 state handgun, 10 state pistol; And finally Washington DC, it's Concealed Carry Pistol License, Guam, it's simply an endorsement on their FOID, Puerto Rico it's Permiso de Portación', or in English "Permit to Carry"; Northern Marianas doesn't issue anything other than a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card since they banned handguns and they refuse to enact any new laws literally out of spite; Meanwhile Under the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands, they issue a 24 Hour Concealed Handgun License, and in American Samoa you simply have to have a License to Possess, which is required to even own a firearm there.

More details

License To Carry - MA, TX, HI License to Carry Handgun - IN License to Carry Pistol - NY License to Carry Concealed Handgun - OH License to Carry Concealed Pistol - CA License to Carry Firearms - PA License to Carry Firearms Concealed - NJ Concealed Deadly Weapons License - KY Concealed Handgun Carry License - AR Concealed Handgun Permit - AK, LA, NC, VA, CO, NE Concealed Handgun License - OR, NM Concealed Weapons Permit - SC, MT, ND, AZ Concealed Weapons License - ID Concealed Carry Pistol License - DC Concealed Carry Deadly Weapons - DE Concealed Carry Permit - MO, SD Concealed Carry License - IL, WI, KS Concealed Pistol License - MI, WA Concealed Pistol/Revolver Permit - WV Concealed Firearms Permit - WY, UT, NV Concealed Weapon or Firearm License - FL Pistol Permit - AL Firearms Permit - MS Handgun License - OK Pistol/Revolver License - NH Permit to Carry Pistol - CT Permit to Carry Concealed Firearms - ME Permit to Carry Handgun - MD Weapons Carry License - GA Permit to Carry Weapons - IA Permit to Carry Pistol - MN

"Permit" full title varies by issuing authority - NV

--Thegunkid (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling that. @Wtmitchell: I did not mean to say that there necessarily was a difference between a license and a permit, but to merely follow the correct nomenclature for each state.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---What I find amusing is the fact that out of ALL the states and Territories, the only one state comes close to CCW, that is Delaware with CCDW, yet somehow CCW is the universal initials for a carry license. --Thegunkid (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd quirk about Pennsylvania Law

So apparently reading into Pennsylvania law, the definition of a firearm under state law only applies to short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, or handguns with barrel lengths less than 15 inches, or anything less than 26 inches overall; and this doesn't seem to be a mistake or oversight as the older definition of a firearm circa 1978 was 12 inches for handguns, 24 inches for shotguns, and 15 inches for rifles; which is interesting considering the fact that short barrel rifles were never restricted under Pennsylvania law, only shotguns had a requirement of 18 inches under the Prohibited Offensive Weapons statute. (Pennsylvania State police ruled Mossberg shockwaves and other firearms of the like to be "pistols" for the purposes of state law)

That said, per Commonwealth v. Todd, 384 A.2d 1215 (Pa. 1978), a handgun with a barrel length of over 15 inches would be legal to carry in Philly without a license. --Thegunkid (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oklahoma's new Constitutional Carry Law(Effective on Nov 1, 2019)

Does Oklahoma's Constitutional Carry law apply to Open Carry as well as Concealed Carry? Is it full Constitutional Carry on Residents Only Permitless Carry? 173.168.246.144 (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it applies to open carry. It applies to residents and nonresidents.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OC map: show totals for each "color"

I encourage the map maker/s to put in parentheses after the description of each color the total number of states having that color (e.g., "Non-permissive (4 + D.C.)"). Phantom in ca (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV image

The first image in this article, New Hampshire Open Carry 2009.jpg does not seem like a typical example. Kidney carry is usually IWB or at least concealed and not well-advised as an open carry position, for obvious reasons. I believe the image was chosen for its shock value. AP295 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The second image with the man at the fast-food restaurant is borderline and certainly not a flattering example. Both of these images depict someone who is distracted, with their handgun at 3:00 or farther back, a slightly negative cant, and in full view. Wikipedia should not set bad examples or exhibit them as typical behavior for the purpose of influencing opinion, so I'm removing them both. Using an outside-the-waistband holster with a t-shirt that's not long enough to cover its entire length would also be an example of open-carry (and much less sensational) AP295 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess I kind of see the point on the kidney carry being atypical but I don't see the problem with this image to the right showing OTW on the hip. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It's an obnoxious caricature. Large cowboy hat, fast food, full-sized handgun prominent. It has always been my understanding that carrying OTW without a shirt long enough to cover the holster 100% of the time is also considered "open carry" and unlawful in certain states, although a cursory search did not yield any legal definition of the terms "open carry" or "concealed carry". In places that are concealed-carry only, whether or not you can effectively and comfortably conceal, and thus legally carry your handgun on any given day can come down to the weather and temperature. It seems like there's some effort on Wikipedia to depict open carry as a dangerous practice and somehow disadvantageous but that's not necessarily the case. In any case, I don't think Wikipedia should reinforce this sort of caricature, or go out of its way to choose examples that make open-carry appear needless, offensive and impractical. Find (and set) a better example. AP295 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As another example of this sort of non-NPOV problem, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_concealed_carry_in_the_U.S.&oldid=950982684 and my section (I'm not sure how to link the section directly) on Talk:History of concealed carry in the U.S.. The article asserted that open carry is only practiced when the wearer intends to cause an uproar or make a political statement, clearly a non-NPOV (and unattributed), but I get the sense that's the sort of public perception certain editors are trying to engender here. One thing not often mentioned is the deterrent effect of open carry. In areas where open carry is legal and not so uncommon that it draws undue attention, I imagine it has a very strong deterrent effect. Granted, that's speculation on my part, but I'm not about to put it in a main article. My point is that several firearm-related articles suffer from very serious non-NPOV issues and often contain unnecessary polemic, and it's not hard to recognize when you step back and look at it. AP295 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It should not be difficult to find a few representative examples that neither romanticize nor satirize open carry. Examples (like the first one I removed) that depict (and thus promote) unsafe firearm handling as if it were normal are completely inappropriate. I'm sure there's not a huge intersection between 2A supporters and Wikipedia editors, but that's no reason these articles should be as bad as they are, and it strains my capacity to AGF. AP295 (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow there's a lot to unpack there.

The OTW kidney carry photo doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic of this article (open carry in the US) beyond the hip holster photo (the cowboy hat one). So I agree with not having that one. I guess if we had a section about OTW kidney carry vs. hip vs. back, etc., we could use the OTW kidney carry photo to illustrate kidney carry, but it's kind of a minor detail compared to the overall topic.

Removing all the photos because you personally think they portray open carry in a bad light is not reasonable. Our readers should be shown a picture of open carry. The hip carry is the best one we have. I'm restoring the hip carry photo to the article. If you find a better one, you're welcome to replace it, but until then, a picture of OTW hip open carry is better than no picture at all. It's not up to me (or anyone else) to find or set a better example; if you want to find a better example, go for it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed that image on grounds of non-NPOV, lack of an acceptable substitute is not an excuse to put it back up. AP295 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You're claiming that the hip holster photo shows an "obnoxious caricature" of people who openly carry. I beg to disagree. I'm not going to say that there aren't obnoxious prudes on Wikipedia who think wearing a cowboy hat makes you look like a 'dumb redneck,' because there are, but I highly doubt people like Lev think that. I am a gun owner and I do openly carry on a regular basis, yet I can't possibly see anything wrong with the picture. You're making allegations of a conspiracy to flout WP:NPOV as an anti-gun push, but that's not what I see at all. Maybe it's projection? I don't know. But, there is a need to have an image in the article that depicts the practice, so we need to either put the image back up or we need a new one (perhaps a gun-owning Wikipedian can provide their own work for the article)? Maybe your allegations of a cowboy hat-wearing, fast food-eating American being used to smear gun owners is merely psychological projection? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

How about this one? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. I forgot that image existed. It's perfect. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Definition of a loaded weapon

The article says that in some states a loaded weapon is defined as "When a person has both the firearm and its ammunition in his or her possession (or readily accessible, in some instances), without regard as to whether a round is in the chamber or a magazine with ammunition is inserted into the firearm". Can anyone provide a reliable reference for at least one state where that's the definition? If not let's remove it from the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  See New York Penal Code 265.00(15), which states "'Loaded firearm' means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm." LonghornBob (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Constitutional Implications

This section states: "The most obvious predicate for a federal right to do so would arise under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." However, rights are not predicated by the constitution. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right as preexisting. The constitution doesn't grant any rights to anybody. Rather, it limits and defines government powers. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the government is granted no power whatsoever to infringe on this preexisting right. Therefore, the quoted material makes no sense. MainePatriot (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Omaha, Nebraska after LB 77

Now that Nebraska has enacted local preemption of firearms laws (LB 77), will open carry soon become unrestricted in Omaha? Pine (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The answer from the legislature is explicitly yes. 105.66.5.15 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Open Carry Banned in Maryland

SB0001 was just signed into law, among other things it requires a person carrying under the authority of a carry permit to keep their gun concealed at all times. Law becomes effective October 1st, 2023. 105.66.5.15 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

NY

It appears NY's color on the map contradicts its entry on the table, does anybody agree? Thornfield Hall (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)