Concealed carry in the United States

src: i.redd.it

Hidden carry or carry hidden weapons ( CCW ), is the practice of carrying a weapon (like a gun) in public in a hidden way, either to someone or within close range. Not all weapons included in the CCW law are deadly. For example, in Florida, carrying pepper spray more than the specified volume (2 oz.) Chemicals require CCW permission, whereas anyone may legally carry a smaller "chemical spray resistance" device that is hidden to a person without CCW. permission. By 2017 there have been 16.3 million secret weapon licenses issued in the United States.

There is no federal law governing the issuance of concealed concealed licenses. All fifty states have passed legislation enabling individuals eligible to carry certain hidden hidden firearms in public, whether unlicensed or after obtaining permission from state and/or local designated government authorities; However, there are still many countries that, even though they have passed the concealed permission legislation, they do not issue permission or make it very difficult to get it.

A comprehensive 2004 literature review by the National Academy of Sciences concludes that no evidence is concealed that either increases or reduces violent crime; some individual studies show that CCW reduces crime by force; others say that it increases crime by violence.

Video Concealed carry in the United States

History

The prohibition of hidden weapons was passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. (At that time, open arms for self-defense was considered acceptable; concealed carry was criticized as a criminal practice.) In 1859, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio followed. By the end of the nineteenth century, similar laws were passed in places like Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, which protected some of the cannon rights in their country's constitution. Before the mid-1900s, most US states had passed carry laws that were concealed from completely prohibiting weapons. Until the late 1990s, many South countries were "No Problem" or "May Restricted Issues". Since then, these states massively enforced "Shall-Issue" licensing laws, with many countries legalizing "Carrys indefinitely".

Maps Concealed carry in the United States

State law

Regulations vary widely by country, with most states currently maintaining a "Shall-Issue" policy. Recently in the mid-90s most countries had no problems or probabilities, but over the past 30 years countries have consistently migrated to less restrictive alternatives.

There is currently a separation of circuits between some federal court courts on standards for issuing permits and the right to carry weapons outside the home. The 9th and 3rd circuits have decided to support a policy that allows problems, while the 7th and D.C circuits have decided that countries are required to implement policies that must be issued, as the right to carry weapons extends outside the home.

The Federal School Zone Gun Free Act limits where unlicensed people can carry; carrying weapons, openly or concealed, within 1,000 feet (300 m) of the school zone is prohibited, with the exception provided in the Federal law to the legally issued state-issued weapons holder (state legislation may reaffirm the illegality of the carry zone schools by licensees), and under LEOSA for current law enforcement officers and respectable pensions (regardless of permits, usually trumping State laws).

When in contact with officers, some countries require that you notify the officer that you are carrying a gun. For detailed information on each state's licensing policy, see State weapons laws in the United States.

Policy permissions

Unlimited jurisdiction : where permission is not required to carry a hidden gun
issue-issuing jurisdiction : which requires a license to carry a hidden pistol, but if the grant is subject only to the determination criteria set forth in law; the granting authority has no discretion in granting licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to indicate "good cause"
May-issue jurisdiction : requiring permission to carry hidden pistols, and where the granting of such permission is partly at the discretion of local authorities (often the sheriff's or police department)
No jurisdictional issues : which - with the exception of very limited - does not allow any citizen to carry hidden pistols in public

Country regulations relating to the issuance of hidden carrying licenses generally fall into the four categories described as Unrestricted, Issues, May Issues, and No Problems.

Unlimited

Unlimited jurisdiction is the place where permission is not required to carry a hidden pistol. This is sometimes called constitution carry. In an unrestricted category, there is a wholly unrestricted state, where no permission is required to bring halal openly or concealed, and partially unrestricted, in which certain forms of hidden carry may legal without permission, while other forms of carry may require permission.

Among US states, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, ^[disputed] Idaho (resident only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota (only residents, cable car only) , Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (resident) are wholly unrestricted, and permit those not to be prohibited from possessing firearms to carry firearms hidden in any place not considered unlawful by law without permission. Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming only extend unlicensed carry to state residents; non-residents still have to have permission issued by their home country to legally bring hidden in these countries. Unlicensed Carry in Mississippi covers only certain ways of carrying; see table above. These countries also allow open carry from unlicensed pistols with the exception of North Dakota and certain areas of Missouri.

Vermont has no provision for carry-carry licensing issues, since nothing is ever required. Thus, Vermont residents wishing to carry pistols in other countries must obtain a license from a legitimate country at their destination. A popular choice is Florida's hidden pistol license, which applies to non-resident holders in 28 other countries. All other prior carrying constitutional statuses have carry-carry licensing requirements prior to the adoption of unbound carry laws, and continue to issue licenses on the basis of issues to be issued for inter-state reciprocal purposes (enabling citizens to travel to other countries with hidden weapons, obey the laws of that state).

The states of Montana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are unlimited states. In particular, Montana currently allows unlicensed carry hidden in places outside of the incorporated city. The New Mexico law allows one to hide a weapon without charge without permission. New Mexico further allows one to carry pistols loaded either openly or hidden while traveling in a vehicle, including motorbikes, recreational vehicles (RV), bicycles or while riding a horse. Oklahoma allows the inhabitants of a transport country without permission to be taken openly or concealed without permission, provided that the individual has a valid ID from their home country. All the countries mentioned provide permission on a mandatory basis for hidden hiding modes that require permission.

On July 24, 2014, Washington D.C. became the jurisdiction of constitutional law for a moment when his prohibition of carrying a gun was considered unconstitutional and the verdict was not fixed. The ruling says that any resident who possesses a legally registered pistol can carry him without permission and not a citizen without a conviction of a crime may be taken as well. The verdict was then fixed on July 29, 2014.

Shall-issue

The obligatory-binding jurisdiction is one that requires a license to carry a concealed pistol, but if the grant is subject only to the determination criteria set forth in law; the granting authority has no discretion in granting licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to indicate "good cause". The law within the jurisdiction of Shall-Issue usually states that the granting authority must publish the license if the criteria are met, as opposed to the law in which the authority may publish the license at their discretion.

Typical licensing requirements include residence, minimum age, sending fingerprints, passing a computerized background check (or a more comprehensive manual background check), attending a safety class of pistols/weapons certified, passing practical qualifications demonstrating gun capability, and paying fees required. These requirements vary greatly according to jurisdiction, with some having little or no of these and others having most or all of them.

The following are the following statuses: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana , Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island (for permission issued by local government), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia , Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The Guam region will also be published under bill 296.

Certain countries and jurisdictions, while "may issue" by law, direct the authorities issuing them to issue licenses to all or almost all eligible applicants, and therefore they are considered "must issue" in practice. Connecticut, and certain cities and counties in California, Massachusetts, and New York are examples.

The Law of Connecticut stipulates that the CCW license is granted on a possible basis, but the state courts have determined that the issuing authority must grant CCW licenses on the basis of issues to be issued to applicants who meet all legal qualifications, because unlike other states who took it out. the law does not contain the requirements for the applicant to indicate "necessary and appropriate reasons" to obtain a license.

Countries with licensing laws are required to issue a permit requiring the issuer to issue permission to the applicant who has submitted a properly completed application, pass a background check, complete the required training, and meet other criteria prescribed by law. The issuing authority does not have the discretion to refuse permission based on factors outside the qualification criteria prescribed by law.

Issues with limited privileges are part of the compulsory licensing-issue that borders on a pure publishing-and-can-out policy, in which the issuing authority has a limited discretion level to refuse applicants carrying concealed licenses based on the applicant's suitability or the reason for requesting permission, even after the applicant completes the required training and passes the background check. In countries that practice such licensing, the issuing authority will be required to demonstrate with convincing evidence that the applicant is unsuitable or does not have an appropriate requirement for the permit. Most refusals in these countries are usually reversed after the appeal, after the applicant passes a background check and meets the training requirements for the permit. Countries with laws that issue problems that allow a limited degree of discretion include Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Although it may be issued by law, Connecticut is also included in this section, in practice.

Some jurisdictions that have to be issued permit automatic renewal of undisclosed storage permissions, as long as the permit holder submits a request for an update before the permit expires (or in some states, a short grace period after the expiry of the original permit). Other jurisdictions require the permit holder to complete refresher training in firearm safety and undergo a criminal background check before applying for an update. Some jurisdictions regularly run permission holder IDs through the NICS background check system. Other jurisdictions require the judge to suspend permission if the holder is arrested for a particular offense (refund/revocation of the license depends on the disposition of the next case).

May-issue

The requisite jurisdiction is one that requires permission to carry a concealed pistol, and where the grant is partly at the discretion of the local authority (often the sheriff's department or the police), with some countries consolidate this discretionary power under state law enforcement. In addition, authorities authorizing authority in most jurisdictions may not be required to provide a substantive reason for refusing a concealed carry license. Some possible publishing jurisdictions may provide an administrative and legal avenue for the applicant to appeal a refusal of permission, while others do not.

The law usually states that the granting authority "can issue" permission if various criteria are met, or that the applicant permits must have a "good cause" (or similar) to carry a hidden weapon. In most such situations, self-defense often often does not meet the requirements of "good cause", and issues authority in some jurisdictions that may have been arbitrarily known to reject the application for CCW permission without giving a substantive reason to the applicant. for rejection. Some authority-issuing jurisdictions require permission holders to provide justification for the continuous need for concealed licenses after the update, and may refuse permission renewals without exposing enough "good intentions." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke the license after it is issued when the issuing authority in its policy has determined that the "good reason" used in approving the application for a license no longer exists. Other jurisdictions that authorize allow automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit holder completes the required weapon safety training and submits an extension request before the permit expires. Some authorizing jurisdictions authorize the issuing authority to grant a closed storage permit pursuant to the applicant's suitability (eg, moral character) by requesting the applicant to submit evidence (resume/curriculum vitae, reference letter, credit history, etc.) which indicates the applicant has appropriate to be granted permission.

When distinguishing between should be published and can be published, the difference may not be explicitly clear in the appropriate letter of law. Conversely, a more accurate determinant of whether a country should issue a versus-possible issue is whether the applicant is asked to show "good intentions" when applying for a permit. Courts precedents also play an important role in determining whether a country may be a problem or should be a problem without regard to long-winded in state law. For example, New York is a country that can be issued, although the licensing laws it covers include the words "must be published", because New York law requires applicants to show "good intentions" when applying for concealed concealment permits. Since "good intentions" are highly subjective, New York authorities have a discretion in determining what is a "good cause", and the ability of ordinary citizens to obtain concealed licenses varies widely across the state. Instead, the pistol allows law in neighboring Connecticut to contain the words "can issue," although Connecticut effectively becomes a problem-issuing country. This is because the permit law of the Connecticut pistol does not require the applicant to show "good cause" to the authority issuing it when applying for a gun clearance. Because the law permitting Connecticut does not have a subjective "subjective cause" standard, that state courts have repeatedly and consistently decided that the issuing authority must issue a pistol license to applicants who meet the state's legal qualifications for gun clearance.

The May issue may be compared with issues in which jurisdictions may be issued, the burden of proof to justify the need for permission to be in the applicant's hands, whereas in the jurisdiction it shall contain the burden of proof to justify the refusal of the permit rests with the issuing authority.

Here are the possible states of law: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

A de jure country may be jurisdiction-the problem can be anywhere in the range of problems for no problem in practice, ie, permissive-possibly problem for limiting may-issue , based on the willingness of each licensing authority to issue permission to the applicant:

Connecticut and Delaware are regarded as permissive-issuing countries, in which government or court policy takes precedence direct publisher authorities to approve apps that meet all non-discretionary criteria.
California, Massachusetts, and New York vary within the state, because the criteria for what is a "good goal" are defined at the local level. Issuing authority in rural California, rural parts of Massachusetts, and Upstate New York generally accept self-defense without certain threat proof as a "good cause" and will grant permission to most applicants who pass the background checks and complete the necessary training of firearms safety. Meanwhile, concealed concealed licenses are difficult to almost impossible for ordinary citizens in urban areas, such as New York City, Long Island, Boston, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco metropolitan area. In these locations, the definition of "good intentions" is generally limited to specific and immediate threats to the applicant's life that can not be reduced in other ways. There are also "fairly strict" local jurisdictions in these countries where localized "cause" definitions may be more restrictive than local ones that practice licensing issuance, but are less restrictive than rare or never-exclusive districts or municipalities.
The laws of the state of Rhode Island are two levels; local authorities are directed by state law and court precedent (Archi v McGarry) to practice issues that permit policy, but the Office of the General Prosecutor has discretionary authority over permits issued by his office. Permissions issued by local authorities and AG apply throughout the state, but AG issues the necessary permits for open carry in general. Some local jurisdictions, on the recommendation of AG, still refer all applicants to AG offices and state "can issue" systems in violation of Archers .

In some possible jurisdictions, permission is granted only to individuals with celebrity status, political connections, or high-level property, resulting in systematic corruption allegations in the way CCW permit applications are decided in some of these jurisdictions. In addition, authorities that charge arbitrarily charged fees far exceed basic processing fees for CCW licenses, thus making CCW licenses unreachable for most applicants. For example, applying for a closed carry permit in New York usually costs around $ 5,000 when the cost of filing and other administrative costs are combined.

In some recent cases, challenging discretionary discretion legislation laws, district courts and federal appeals have generally imposed intermediate inquiries for these and other related Second Amendments, in which the court acknowledges that the legislation of discretionary restrictions "violates the right of individuals to defend and carry arms," â€‹â€‹but also acknowledged that such violations are permitted to further "important governmental interests in public safety." Any and all other rights described as "individual" and "fundamental" by SCOTUS require a "strict supervision" standard as indicated in the previous decision involving fully applicable merger cases. In Maryland, Woollard v. Sheridan , the United States District Court for the District of Maryland decided to support Maryland residents who were denied extension permits due to lack of "good intentions" in accordance with Maryland law. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding the terms "good cause" of meeting the intermediate supervisory standards applicable to restrictions on the right to carry weapons outdoors, and returning the terms "good cause" on 21 March, 2013. The plaintiffs in the petition case to certiorari in the United States Supreme Court; the court rejected certiorari without comment on October 15. The same "good reason" requirement of the same New York was also challenged at Kachalsky v. Cacase. However, certiorari before SCOTUS was rejected on April 15, 2013. Drake v. Filko, involving several plaintiffs (including one abducteee) was denied permission under the New Jersey permit system; the lawsuit challenges New Jersey's "justifiable requirements" requirement for permission to bring. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms lower court rulings holding constitutional requirements, holding (such as the 4th Circuit at Woollard and the 2nd Circuit at Kachalsky) New Jersey legislation is safe from intermediate supervision. A common theme of the Court of Appeal decision enforcing possible legislation is that state or local policies in limiting who is authorized to carry firearms in public "are increasingly attracting important government attention in public safety," state legislation makes laws that make hidden licenses carry available but set criteria to limit the number of concealed license holders to conceal for as little as possible to pass constitutional collecting. The Court is of the opinion that this law survives from intermediate supervision on that basis. However, all other "fundamental" and "individual" rights are subject to "strict supervision" standards, see, Duncan, 391 US at 149, and n. 15, supra., "The fundamental rights of the American perspective apply equally to the Federal Government and the United States."

Hidden running US military installations

While members of Armed Services can receive extensive small arms training, the US Military installation has some of the most stringent regulations for ownership, transportation, and carrying private firearms in the country.

The overall authority to carry private firearms on military installations lies with the installation commander, although the authority to allow individuals to carry firearms at the installation is usually delegated to Provost Marshal. Military installations do not recognize state-carrying licenses, and state firearms laws generally do not apply to military bases, regardless of the circumstances in which the installations are located. The federal law (18 USC, Section 930) generally prohibits the ownership, transportation, and carrying of firearms on military installations without the consent of the installation commander. The federal law gives widespread authority to the installation commander in setting firearms policy for their respective installations. In practice, local policy is often limited by policy and direction from the headquarters of every major military and command branch.

Installation policies may vary from no problem for most bases to be published in rare circumstances. Installations that allow carrying firearms usually restrict carrying to designated areas and for specific purposes (ie, hunting or official firing competitions are approved at approved locations at installation). The installation commanders may require complete complete weapons safety training to the applicant, undergo a mental health evaluation, and obtain a letter of recommendation from the unit commander (or the employer) before the authorization is granted. Personnel in military installations are usually required to keep their personal firearms in the installation arsenal, although the installation commander or provost marshal may allow the servicemember to store his personal weapon in their on-premises residence if he has a safe or similarly designed weapon cabinet in where firearms can be secured.

Prior to 2011, military commanders may impose restrictions on firearms to limbs living outside the base, such as mandatory registration of firearms with Provost Marshal base, restrict or prohibit the carrying of firearms by service members either inside or outside the installation regardless of whether members have state permission to carry, and require servic members to have a safe or similar container with a gun to secure firearms when not in use. The provisions are incorporated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 which limits the authority of the commander to impose restrictions on ownership and use of private firearms by servic members living outside the base.

No problem

no-issue jurisdiction is one that - with very limited exceptions - does not allow any citizen to carry a hidden gun in public. This term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permit will be issued (or acknowledged). Since July 2013, with the legalization of hidden carry in Illinois, there is currently no problem; only with the American Samoa region being the only US jurisdiction that completely prohibits hidden carry.

Although technically can be issued under state laws, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and certain cities and districts in California, Massachusetts, and New York there are no jurisdictional issues in practice, with government policies that direct officials with authority discretionary for infrequent or never issuing licenses. In addition, some territorial territories of the United States (US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, etc.) have no jurisdiction in practice. Most jurisdictions have no problem of having exceptions to their open enabling or closed law brought by active and retired law enforcement officials, armed security personnel while on duty and in uniform, and to members of the Armed Forces. Wisconsin and Illinois are the countries without the last remaining problems, until the hidden carry license is legalized in 2011 and 2013, respectively. Before legalization, Wisconsin prohibits carry secrets, but open carry is legal throughout the state. Illinois has banned hidden carry, and is generally prohibited from bringing it open in most locations as well.

Limitations on hidden carry

The prohibition of carrying firearms and other weapons kept secret by the local government precedes the formation of the United States. In 1686, the New Jersey law stipulated "no person or person... would personally consider wearing a pocket gun... or any other unusual or illegal weapons in the Province." Once the federal government is established, states and regions continue to ban people carrying hidden weapons. The Tennessee Act prohibits this as early as 1821. In 1837, Georgia came into force "A law to safeguard and protect these citizens, against the use of unwarranted and overly lethal weapons." Two years later, Alabama followed with "An Act to Suppress the Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly." Delaware banned practice in 1852. Ohio did the same in 1859, a policy that remained in effect until 1974. The city also arranged weapons within their boundaries. In 1881, Tombstone, Arizona authorized Ordinance No. 9 "To Prohibit Takes a Deadly Weapon," a rule that ignites Gunfight in O.K. Corral later that year.

Most of the possible jurisdictions are issued, and some jurisdictions that are issued allow authorized authorities to impose restrictions on CCW licenses, such as the type and caliber of a handgun (Massachusetts, New Mexico), restrictions on places where the permit applies ( New York, Rhode Island, Illinois), restricting hidden carry to destinations or activities specified in approved consent applications (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York), magazine size limitations (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York), or restrictions on the number of possible firearms concealed by the permit holder at any given time (several states). Permissions issued by all but two states (New York and Hawaii) apply across the state. New York State gun licenses, generally issued by the state, apply throughout the state with one exception. Permission not issued by New York City is void in the city unless it is validated by a police commissioner. Permissions issued by Hawaii are valid only in the issue area.

Training requirements

Some states require concealed applicants to certify their skills with firearms through some type of training or instruction. Certain training courses developed by the National Rifle Association that incorporate class and live-fire instructions typically meet most of the country's training requirements. Some countries recognize previous military or police services as a meeting training requirement.

Classroom instructions typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, cleaning and maintenance of firearms, concealed laws and restrictions, responsibility issues, carrying and security methods, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and the practice of handling weapons techniques without shoot weapons. Most of the required CCW training courses devote considerable time to responsibility issues.

Depending on the state, a practical component in which participants shoot weapons for the purpose of demonstrating security and finesse may be necessary. During the range instruction, applicants will usually learn and demonstrate safe handling and accurate firearm operation and shooting from a common defense distance. Some states require a certain ability to accept graduation scores, while other states (eg, Florida) technically only need one shot fired to show handling capabilities.

The CCW training course is usually completed in one day and is good for a certain period of time, the exact duration varies by state. Some states require retraining, sometimes in a shorter and simpler format for each update.

Some states, for example, South Carolina, recognize the security training and use-force given to military personnel as being accepted as formal civilian training certification. These countries will request a military ID (South Carolina) for an active person or DD214 for respectably dismissed persons. Some of these states will usually request a copy of the applicant's BTR (Basic Training Note) that proves the qualification of the latest pistol. Active and retired law enforcement officers are generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to federal laws that allow retired law enforcement officials to carry hidden weapons in the United States.

Virginia recognizes eight specific training options to prove competence in handling firearms, ranging from DD214 to respectfully discharged military veterans, to certification from law enforcement training, firearm training conducted by state certified firearm instructors or NRAs including electronics, video, or on-line. courses. While one of the eight options listed will be considered sufficient evidence, each circuit court may recognize other training options. A small number of states, such as Alabama and Georgia, have no training requirement to get permission - only the requirement that the applicant successfully pass the necessary background checks prior to publication.

Reciprocity

Many jurisdictions recognize (respect) permissions or licenses issued by other jurisdictions. Acknowledgments may be granted to all jurisdictions or sub-sets that comply with a set of permission criteria, such as training that is comparable to respectful jurisdiction or background checks. Some countries have signed formal agreements to mutually recognize permits. This arrangement is usually called reciprocity or mutual recognition. Some states do not recognize permissions issued by other jurisdictions, but offer non-resident permits to individuals outside of the state (who have a valid legal permit from their home country) who wish to bring when visiting those countries. There are also countries that do not recognize unreasonable carry permits or permit problems for non-residents, resulting in complete restrictions on carry hidden by non-residents in those countries.

Recognition and reciprocity of privileged privacy vary. Some states (eg Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio) unilaterally recognize all permissions. Others like Michigan, limiting universal recognition to the citizens of the issuing state. While 37 countries have reciprocal agreements with at least one other state and some states respect all concealment licenses, some countries have special requirements such as training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not respect the permits of unlicensed countries. requirements for the problem. Some countries make exceptions for persons below the minimum age (usually 21) if they are active or dismissed military or police personnel (the second of two is permitted under Federal law). Countries that do not have these exceptions generally do not recognize the licenses of the countries that do so. An example of this is Washington State's refusal to honor LTC Texas because Texas has military exceptions for ages. Idaho and Missouri also have standard and enhanced permissions that have different requirements to acquire and also have unique reciprocity with different states.

Ohio licenses have the highest recognition in 40 states. One can obtain some state permission in an attempt to increase the number of countries where the user can carry a legally hidden weapon. It is a common practice to use the CCW Reciprocity Map for clarity on which countries will respect the combination of people from residents and non-resident permits in view of state standards and legal policies from state to state. There are also various mobile applications that guide users in researching the reciprocal status of state lease permits.

Although the carry may be legal under State law pursuant to reciprocal agreements, the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act subdues the out-of-state license holders for federal criminal prosecution if they carry firearms within 1000 feet of each property line of K-12 schools; However, enforcement of this law is rarely granted by some state cancellation laws' prohibiting state law enforcement officers from enforcing federal firearm laws.

Forbidden building

Although generally permission to carry a concealed license allows the holder to carry a hidden weapon in public, the state may restrict the carrying of firearms including secret weapons that are permitted while on or on certain properties, facilities or other types of businesses otherwise open to the public.. These areas vary by state (except for the first item below; federal office is subject to federal superser law) and may include:

Federal government facilities , including post offices, IRS offices, federal courthouse, military/VA facilities and/or prisons, railways and Amtrak facilities, and property controlled by Corps of Engineers (brought in these places is prohibited by Federal law and precedes the existing state law). Land tenure controlled by the Land Management Bureau (federal park and wildlife protection) is permitted by Federal law in the 2009 CARD Law, but is still subject to state law. However, bringing to a restroom or building or other structure located in a federal park is illegal in the United States, although it carries a concealed legal claim in a federal park with a permit recognized by the state in which the federal park is located. Similarly, hiding carry to caves located in federal parks is illegal.
State and local government facilities , including courthouses, DMV/DoT offices, police stations, correctional facilities, and/or meeting places of government entities (exceptions may be made for certain individuals working in these facilities such as judges, lawyers, and selected government officials and appointed)
Places for political events , including rallies, parades, debates, and/or polls
Educational institutions including primary and secondary schools and colleges. Some states have "drop-off exceptions" that only prohibit bringing in school buildings, or allow temporary carrying in private vehicles at school properties. The law of the college carries varies by country.
Interscholastic and/or general professional events and/or places of sports (sometimes only during the time window surrounding such events)
Amusement parks, exhibitions, parades and/or carnivals
Businesses selling alcohol (sometimes just "drink-drink" sellers like restaurants, sometimes only companies defined as "bars" or "nightclubs", or companies where a percentage of total sales of alcoholic drinks over a certain threshold)
Hospitals (even if the hospitals themselves are not restricted, "teaching hospitals" in partnership with medical schools are sometimes considered "educational institutions": exceptions are sometimes made for medical professionals working in this facility)
Church , mosques and other "Houses of worship", usually at the discretion of church clergy (Ohio allows with special permission from places of worship)
Vehicle or mass transit facility of the city

Airport sterile area (part of airport located outside checkpoint of security check, unless expressly permitted)

Non-governmental facilities with high security measures (nuclear facilities, power plants, dams, oil and gas production facilities, banks, factories, unless expressly authorized)

Aboard a plane or ship unless specifically authorized by the pilot at the command or captain of the ship

Private property in which the legitimate owner or the lessee has posted a sign or orally declares that a firearm is not allowed

Any public place, under the influence of alcohol or drugs (including certain prescriptions or over-the-counter medicines, depending on jurisdiction)

"Opt-in" statutes ("weapon-free zone")
Some countries allow private businesses to post special signs prohibiting carrying hidden items inside their premises. The exact language and format of these signs vary by country. By posting signs, a business creates an illegal area to carry a hidden pistol; similar to the rules about schools, hospitals, and general meetings.
Violation of such a mark, in some of these states, is the reason for the removal of hidden concealment licenses and criminal prosecution. Other countries, such as Virginia, impose only violating the law when someone violates the "Gun Free Zone" sign. In some jurisdictions, a violation by a person carrying a firearm may have a more severe punishment than a "simple" offense, while in other jurisdictions, the penalty is lower than the offense.
Negara-negara tersebut meliputi: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Carolina Selatan, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, dan Wisconsin.
There is quite a lot of disagreement about the effectiveness of such "weapon free zones". Persons who oppose such acts, such as OpenCarry.org, claim that, like any other malum prohibitum law prohibiting weapons-related practices, only law-abiding individuals will pay attention to disarmament and disarmament. Individuals or groups who intend to commit a much more serious crime, such as armed robbery or murder, will not be blocked by a sign that prohibits weapons. Further, the following reason that those who intend to commit mass murder may have deliberately chosen weapons-free places such as shopping centers, schools and churches (where weapons carry are generally prohibited by law or nameplate) because the population inside is disarmed and thus less able to stop them.
In some states, business owners have been documented putting up signs that appear to ban arms, but not legally due to signs of not meeting local or state laws that define the required performance, placement, or selection of words. Such signs can be posted due to ignorance of the law, or the intent to appease armed control supporters while not actually prohibiting such practices. The legal forces behind the disobedient signs vary by state law and case law. Some countries interpret the high specs of their signboards as proof that the nameplate must meet the specifications appropriately, and quantitative deviations from the law make it non-binding. Other countries have decided in the legal case that if efforts are made in good faith to conform with the law, the marks bring the force of law even if it fails to meet current specifications. Still others have a weak description of what is a valid sign that almost every sign that can be interpreted as "no weapons are allowed" binds the licensees.
Note that almost all jurisdictions permit some form of oral communication by the rightful owner or property controller that a person is not accepted and must leave. This notification may be granted to anyone for any reason (except for a status protected by the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act and other CRAs, such as race), including for bringing a firearm by such person, and refusal to pay attention to a request to leave may be a violation.
Brandishing and printing
Printing refers to the circumstances in which the shape or outline of firearms is visible through clothing when the gun is completely closed, and is generally undesirable when carrying a hidden weapon. Brandishing may refer to different actions depending on the jurisdiction. These actions can include printing through clothing, retracting clothes to expose weapons, or unleashing weapons and flaunting them in hand. Intent to intimidate or threaten a person may or may not be legally required to be considered a swing.
Brandishing is a crime in most jurisdictions, but the definition of swing varies greatly.
Under California law, the following conditions must be present to prove to swing:
[1] A person, in front of another, draws or exhibits [deadly weapon, in addition to firearms] [firearms, whether loaded or dismantled]; [and] [2] The person does it in a violent, angry, or threatening way [or] [2] The person, by any means, illegally using [deadly weapon] in a fight or quarrel]. ] [; and [3] The person does not act in legitimate defense.]
Dalam hukum Virginia:
It is unlawful for any person to designate, hold or swing a firearm or weapon operated by air or gas or similar objects in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in a reasonable way to cause fear in the minds of others. or hold a firearm or gun operated air or gas in a public place in such a way as to cause fear in the minds of others who were shot or wounded. However, this section does not apply to anyone involved in self-defense that can be excused or justified.

src: media.npr.org

Federal law

Gun Control Act of 1968
The Gun Control Act was passed by Congress in 1968 lists of criminals, illegal aliens, and other persons codified as prohibited from buying or possessing firearms. During the application process to the circumstance of carrying a hidden conduct a thorough background check to prevent these people from obtaining permission. In addition, the Brady Pollution Prevention Act creates a system that the FBI maintained in 1994 to immediately examine the background of potential arms buyers in an attempt to prevent these people from acquiring weapons.
Owners Protection of Firearms
The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) allows gun owners to travel through countries where their firearms are illegal as long as it is legal in the country of origin and destination, the owner is on a journey and is not fixed in a country where the ownership firearms are illegal, and firearms are transported uncharged and in locked containers. FOPA takes care of the problem of transporting private firearms from origin to destination for legitimate purposes in the country of origin and destination; FOPA does not allow hidden carry as a defense weapon during transit. The New York State Police do not recognize this law. If caught you will be arrested and then asked to use FOPA as an affirmative defense against allegations of illegal possession.
Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Official
In 2004, the United States Congress enacted Law Enforcement Safety Act, 18 US Codes 926B and 926C. This federal law allows two classes of people - "qualified law enforcement officers" and "retired eligible legal officers" - to carry firearms hidden in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any conflicting state or local law , with certain exceptions.
Federal Gun Free School Zones Acting
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act limits where a person legally carries a firearm. This is by making it generally unlawful for armed citizens to be within 1000 feet (stretching out of the property line) from a place known to the individual, or having a reasonable reason to believe, is a K-12 school. Although a carrying permit issued by the state may exempt a person from this limitation in a State which physically issues their permission, it does not exempt them in another State which recognizes their permission under a reciprocal agreement made with the Issuing State. The failure of the law to provide adequate protection to LEOSA-qualified officers, undisclosed storage holders, and other armed citizens, is a matter so far not addressed by the United States Congress.
Federal property
Some federal laws restrict the carrying of firearms in certain Federal property sites such as military installations or lands controlled by USACE.
National park carries
On May 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the H.R. 627, "Responsibility for Credit Card Acknowledgment and Disclosure Act of 2009," becomes law. The bill contains a driver introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) which prohibits the Interior Secretary from enforcing or enforcing regulations limiting the possession of firearms in National Parks or Wildlife Refugees, as long as the person obeys the laws of the circumstances in which the unit is found. This provision is supported by the National Rifle Association and is opposed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence against Weapons, National Park Conservation Associations, and the National Parks Retirement Coalition, among other organizations. In February 2010 the hidden pistol for the first time was legal in all but 3 of the 391 national parks and wildlife protection as long as all applicable federal, state and local regulations were observed. Hawaii is an exception. Undisclosed and open whitewater are both illegal in Hawaii for all but retired military or law enforcement officers. Previously firearms allowed into the park if wrapped and dismantled.
Faith and full credit (CCW permission)
Attempts were made at the 110th Congress, the United States House of Representatives (H.R. 226) and the United States Senate (S. 388), to enact legislation to force complete reciprocity for permits carrying undisclosed secrets. Opponents of national reciprocity have shown that this law will effectively require countries with a more restrictive standard of publishing permits (eg, training courses, safety exams, "good needs" requirements, et al.) To honor permission from countries with more liberal publishing policies. Proponents have pointed out that the same situation has occurred with marriage certificates, adoption decisions and other state documents under the "full confidence and credit" clause of the US Constitution. Some states have adopted a policy of "full and credit beliefs" that treat permission to carry out-of-state with a driver's license or marriage certificate from outside the state without federal law that requires such a policy. In the 115th Congress, another universal reciprocal bill, the Hidden Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, was introduced by Richard Hudson. The bill passed the House and is awaiting a vote by the Senate.
src: aliengearholsters.com

Legal issues

Court decision
Prior to 1897 the highest court case of Robertson v. Baldwin , federal courts have been silent on the issue of hidden carry. In the dictates of a maritime law case, the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting hidden weapons do not violate the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.
In a majority decision in the case of the Supreme Court of 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller , Judge Antonin Scalia writes;
Like most rights, the rights of the Second Amendment are endless. It is not the right to store and carry any weapon in any way and for any purpose: For example, the prohibition of a concealed weapon has been established under an amendment or an analogue of the state... The majority of the trials of the 19th century consider the question held that the prohibition of carrying weapons hidden is valid under Second Amendment or analog state.
Heller is an important case because for the first time in the history of the United States the Supreme Court's decision established the right to bear arms as a constitutional guarantee for private citizens rather than limited rights to "well-regulated militia [s]". The judge stated that a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms is constitutional, however, the direct prohibition of certain types of weapons, in this case hand weapons, is in fact unconstitutional. Heller's decision was limited because it only applies to federal pockets like the District of Columbia. In 2010, SCOTUS expanded Heller at McDonald v. Chicago that incorporated the 2nd Amendment through the 14th Amendment as the application of local and state laws. Circuit Courts have upheld their local and state laws using intermediate supervision. The correct standard is a rigorous examination of all "fundamental" and "individual" rights. On June 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court followed up on a pistol ban authorized by the city of Chicago, Illinois, at McDonald v. Chicago , effectively expanding Heller's decision to state and local national governments. Prohibiting a gun in any jurisdiction has the effect of creating the unauthorized right of any individual licensed to be confidential in the area except for retired and law enforcement officials excluded by the federal government and other government employees acting in their official duties.
Legal responsibility
Even when self-defense is justified, there can be a serious civil or criminal liability related to self-defense when the permit holder brings the concealed swing or fires his weapon. For example, if an innocent person is injured or killed, there may be civil and criminal liability even if the use of lethal force is completely justified. Some countries technically allow an attacker who was shot by a gun owner to bring a civil action. In some states, accountability comes when people comment on weapons, threaten usage, or aggravate unstable situations, or when residents carry while drunk. It is important to note that simply pointing a firearm to everyone is a crime attack with a deadly weapon unless the state of validating a demonstration of force. The majority of countries that permit the carrying of concealed goods, prohibit clothing brought in such cases, either by prohibiting lawsuits for criminal damage on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the immunity of the gun owner from such a civil suit. it was found that he was justified in the shootings.
Simultaneously, an increase in the part of the "Castle Doctrine" law allows people who have firearms and/or take them into hiding to use them without first attempting to retreat. The "Castle Doctrine" usually applies to situations within the confines of the home itself. Nevertheless, many countries have adopted the escalation of the law of force along with the provision for concealment. This includes the need to first orally warn the offender or lay hands on the offender before the shooting is justified (except the armed intruder or assumed to be so). This force escalation does not apply if the shooter is reasonably certain the violent crime has been or will be committed on the property by an intruder. In addition, some countries have an obligation to cancel provisions requiring permit holders, especially in public places, to empty themselves from potentially dangerous situations before resorting to lethal forces. The obligation to withdraw is not limited to a person's home or business in spite of the need for increased strength. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. United States (1895) that if an individual does not provoke an attack and be somewhere where they have the right to it then they can use great power over someone they believe can do it seriously, without being accused of murder or murder, if the person is killed. Furthermore, in Texas and California, murder can only be justified in defense of property. In other countries, lethal force is only permitted when serious harm is considered to be imminent.
Even given the relaxed restrictions on the use of force, using a gun must still be the last resort in some jurisdictions; meaning the user must believe that there is no shortage of deadly forces that will protect the life or property at stake in a situation. In addition, civil liability for errors that cause harm to others still exists, although civilian immunity is provided in the Castle Doctrine laws of some states (eg, Texas).
Punishment to bring illegally
Criminal arms ownership is the possession of weapons that are illegal by a citizen. Many societies in the past and present have placed restrictions on the forms of weapons of civilians (and to a lesser extent police) allowed to buy, own, and bring in public. Such a crime is a crime of public order and is deemed to be prohibitory, that the possession of weapons in and of itself is not evil. Conversely, the potential for use in unlawful acts of violence creates a possible need to control it. Some restrictions are strictly accountable, while others require some element of intent to use the weapon for illegal purposes. Some rules allow citizens to obtain permission or other authorization to own weapons under certain circumstances. The use of legitimate weapons by civilians generally includes hunting, sports, collection and self-preservation.
Penalties for carrying firearms in unlawful ways vary greatly from country to country, and may range from simple offenses that can be punished by fines for crime convictions and mandatory detention. A person can also be indicted and punished for criminal charges other than possession of unauthorized weapons, such as attack, disorderly conduct, or disturbing peace.
src: idahofirearmsclasses.com

Effects on violent crime
A 2004 comprehensive review of the existing literature by the National Academy of Sciences found that the results of the existing research were sensitive to the specifications and time periods examined, and concluded that the causal relationship between the true and criminal law could not be demonstrated.. Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius summarized the literature published between 1993 and 2005, and found that ten papers suggested that a permissive CCW law reduces crime, one paper suggests they increase crime, and nine papers do not show definite results. A 2016 study on the European Economic Review examining conflicting claims in existing literature concluded that
Source of the article : Wikipedia

Sabtu, 02 Juni 2018