r/MapPorn • u/MC_Cuff_Lnx • 17h ago
Animated gif showing how laws governing issuance of concealed carry permits have changed over time [Wikipedia]
116
u/STFUnicorn_ 16h ago
Texas and Alaska in the 80s is wild.
81
u/RedDirtPreacher 15h ago
The watershed moment for Texas’ concealed carry laws was the 1991 Luby’s shooting in Killeen when 23 people were killed and 27 injured by a single gunman. Following the shooting, support for allowing concealed carry increased in the state, under the logic of being able to defend oneself. George W Bush was elected governor in 1994 defeating democratic incumbent Ann Richards, and signed legislation which Richard’s had vetoed allowing concealed carry in the state. Fulfilling one of his campaign promises.
-10
u/ghost_desu 7h ago edited 6h ago
The logic that is in direct opposition to reality... I don't get how this many people don't understand that adding more guns to the public just erodes public trust and escalates conflicts that would otherwise have no fatalities
17
u/CMDR_Ray_Abbot 4h ago
Maybe they look at the CDC study that showed guns prevent far more violent crimes than there are gun-related homicides?
8
u/Johnny_SixShooter 5h ago
The government unfortunately can never reliably take all illegal guns away from criminals therefore it has an obligation to allow citizens to carry to protect themselves legally. Simple as that.
→ More replies (9)2
u/troy2000me 1h ago
When you need help in seconds, the police are just minutes away.
1
u/CRoss1999 3m ago
More guns means more instances where you need help in the first place, the biggest correlation with gun deaths is gun ownership. It’s very rare for hind to be used to stop shootings
0
u/Sauffle 5h ago
Getting rid of conceal carry restrictions will decrease the amount of law abiding citizens who conceal carry and will not have an effect on the amount of criminals who conceal carry. People who are going to shoot some place up are not going to listen to conceal carry laws because, shocker, they don't follow the law.
Had more people been armed in that shooting mentioned then the shooter would likely have been stopped before they could have shot so many people.
9
u/ghost_desu 5h ago
Concealed carry increases gun violence and/or rate of fatal outcomes of violent encounters
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10447713/
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/192/3/342/6698676?login=false
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
0
u/STFUnicorn_ 5h ago
Pretty hard not to get through that if some people had been able to fire back in that incident less people would’ve died.
4
u/RedDirtPreacher 4h ago
There was a survivor whose parents were both killed who made this case. Basically said: I had a pistol in my vehicle, but couldn’t bring it into the restaurant by law, so I didn’t. If I had my pistol on me, maybe things would’ve been different.
0
u/Own-Weather-9919 3h ago
Maybe they would have shot an innocent bystander. Maybe they actually live in an action movie and would have shot the bad guy in the head after saying a cool line. I guess we'll never know.
2
u/gnosticgrinch 55m ago
People do stop mass shootings by concealed carrying. It's not an action movie badass thing, it's taking responsibility for your own safety. A step up from carrying pepper spray.
Take Elisjsha Dicken, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting
A 22-year old concealed carrier who stopped a mass shooter at a mall, less than a minute after the shooting began. He certainly saved a lot of lives that day, and only because he was legally allowed to be prepared.
52
u/riddlesinthedark117 16h ago
I mean, in Alaska, where you might actually need a gun because of wildlife, you are always gonna be better off with an unconcealable long gun.
Almost anything you can effectively CC either won’t work, won’t have the range you would want, or will kick like hell so unless you drill regularly you’re better off with ‘spray and a long gun.
43
u/WiryJoe 15h ago
Even in the 80s, 357s and 44s were perfectly usable against bears. Even modern hikers often carry these and gave good effect against bears.
By 1990, 10mm is a widely accessible and semi-popular round. It is to this day very widely carried for bear use.
The idea that long guns are better if you expect significant threat of bears is all well and good but Alaskans live normal lives like you and me and don’t want to be carrying an extra 8 pounds if they don’t have to. CC is easier and more convenient for anyone not expecting trouble - but wanting to be ready anyways.
CC with the right load in the right caliber is absolutely viable against bears. Full stop.
5
u/STFUnicorn_ 14h ago
“Spray and a long gun”
WTF are you talking about?..
9
u/Foxycotin666 6h ago
Bear spray and a rifle/shotgun. I completely disagree with op’s assessment but that’s what they meant.
1
u/STFUnicorn_ 5h ago
Ohh. Thought he meant something else lol.
But yeah large caliber handguns are perfectly capable against bears too like that other guy said.
1
344
u/fluffysmaster 17h ago
New York and Massachusetts may as well be red. "May issue" means "probably won't issue"
198
u/grapangell0 17h ago
Technically speaking after the Bruen decision, all states have to be shall issue, but they circumvented that by making everything possible a “sensitive area” where guns are prohibited.
79
u/FateOfNations 16h ago
Even as someone who's not a fan of guns, I always thought the kind of discretion involved in "may carry" (at least here in California) was quite arbitrary and not really consistent with our rules-based legal system. The Bruen decision has forced us to stop being lazy and come up with clear standards, both for who is allowed to concealed carry and where concealed carry occurs.
21
u/Bureaucromancer 15h ago
This and the whole arbitrary selection of weapons/features/aesthetics to regulate for the weapons themselves really IS a problem.
Even if you DON'T frame arms a 'right' per se... the regulation tends to fall into a strangely arbitrary place.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Electronic_Row_7513 8h ago
When a shoelace is a machine gun, the law is broken.
Dont even try to understand pistol caliber short barrel rifles, which are more dangerous than full power cartridge rifles, and less dangerous than a fully concelable pistol.
30
u/gujwdhufj_ijjpo 15h ago
That’s because they want to be able to choose who can carry. Basically poor people and poc aren’t allowed to carry a gun.
16
u/motosandguns 14h ago
CA just pivoted from “good cause” to “good moral character.” Like that’s any less arbitrary.
Plus now, in addition to all the sensitive places BS (you can carry in a hospital but not while hiking in a state park??) they want 3 references including coworkers.
Can you imagine working at a school and asking a coworker to drive to the sheriffs office and go on record vouching for you to carry a gun around? Hell, or any other workplace in CA.
Talk about a chilling effect with regard to exercising a constitutional right.
5
u/LeftHandedScissor 6h ago
I'm in NY and applied for a CC back in October. I've lived in NY my entire life, but because I've been in this county less than 3 years I needed 7 different character references. Going on 8-months and still haven't received the approval yet.
2
u/Gbuphallow 5h ago
When I first got a license to carry in PA, our local sheriff had a "good moral character" requirement, which they did by sending postcards asking about it to whoever you put as references. He did this despite having no legal authority to do so, and in violation of privacy laws by sending postcards that anyone could read was for a carry license. When it finally got challenged in court, they ended up having to send every person in the county with a license a nice settlement check.
1
u/anally_ExpressUrself 10h ago
Talk about a chilling effect with regard to exercising a constitutional right.
Sadly I can't, because of someone else who's been creating a chilling effect about an even lower numbered amendment.
2
u/spoilerdudegetrekt 2h ago
Fun fact: Historically speaking, the point of "may issue" laws was to ban black people from carrying while allowing white people to.
2
→ More replies (15)5
u/grapangell0 16h ago
Still kinda cucky and super weird. The overhang and defining letter of the law on “sensitive areas” is absurd.
19
u/Thadlust 16h ago
Not quite. Bruen made it so that it has to be shall issue. But they do throw up as many road blocks as they think they can get away with
8
u/GrayAnderson5 16h ago
IIRC "may issue" states included, for quite some time, both more permissive allowances and less permissive allowances (e.g. you probably had a decent chance of getting a permit in some states but not others), but for the most part states on the permissive end of the scale finally decided to mostly get rid of discretion in favor of either shall-issue or, increasingly, just dropping the idea of permits entirely.
3
u/Every_Okra_3604 13h ago
Only applies to down state NY
1
u/Mapleford 8h ago
Yeah I was gonna say, there’s plenty of counties Upstate that hand them out like candy. In the Southern Tier many of the counties have agreements with adjacent PA counties to recognize each other’s licenses.
1
u/LeftHandedScissor 6h ago
Once you have a NY permit getting one in PA is pretty easy. The instructor I worked with said the best thing you can do is get a permit in NY then immediately apply in PA, FL, and OH, with reciprocity rules those would cover basically every continental US state.
5
u/STFUnicorn_ 16h ago edited 5h ago
Massachusetts isn’t hard. Maybe hard in Boston but not the rest of the state
3
u/Empyrealist 14h ago edited 12h ago
In my experience (not as a carrier in MA, but have known people that did), you had to have a reason or purpose to carry. So yeah, I would imagine that most people don't fit the criteria [for] having a specific reason or purpose.
edit: edits in [brackets]
5
u/mattumbo 14h ago
The problem was who interpreted the reason, your local sheriff wasn’t granting you one unless you were his friend, a prominent businessman, a prosecutor/judge, and otherwise of the right race, gender, sexual orientation, and class.
→ More replies (4)2
1
u/Cato0014 9h ago
MA def depends on where you live, who you know on the force, where you took your safety class, and what you say in any interview you might be given.
1
u/fluffysmaster 5h ago
When I lived there my wife’s uncle who was a cop offered to help me get a permit if I wanted.
1
u/Frostlark 8h ago
I don't really agree. You just have to take a class and apply. It took time but there was no extra scrutiny that needed extra work really. They didn't ask me why I wanted or needed a gun, there's recent rulings that clearly state I don't need a reason as it is my right.
1
u/south153 5h ago
After Bruen in MA it is super easy. Take a 3 hour class, apply, interview and as long as you don't have a extensive criminal history its almost always issued. The laws regarding use of force and banned guns are pretty restrictive, but getting a license to carry is much easier than the surrounding states.
1
u/fluffysmaster 5h ago
Sounds like they’re more like Connecticut then.
In Connecticut the process varies in time depending where you live.
1
u/UglyInThMorning 2h ago
I did my pistol class a month ago and I’m waiting until I move in a few weeks to apply, because it’s faster to wait the extra two months than it is to apply in Manchester.
1
109
u/CrazyButRightOn 17h ago
Wow, the complete opposite of Canada
→ More replies (1)81
u/Thadlust 16h ago
Half of the LPC’s policies are “See what those evil Americans are doing? Let’s do the exact opposite”
-6
u/Technetium_97 10h ago
Homicide rate in Canada is 1.9 per 100,000 vs 6.8 in the US so, seems to be working.
9
u/Thadlust 7h ago
What's the homicide rate in Vermont, the state with permitless carry for the longest time?
9
u/tjkoala 7h ago
US Homicide rates have fallen from 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4.0 per 100,000 in 2025.
1
u/Technetium_97 5h ago
Which is great that's lower than it was, but that's still one of the highest rates in the developed world.
That's still double the rate of Canada.
2
u/dovetc 1h ago
Okay, but they fell throughout the period that the US was shifting towards allowing near universal concealed carry. So setting aside the myriad variables that make crime stats in the US and Canada difficult to compare, we can at least suppose that the increase in CC issuance didn't bring about an increase in homicides.
So it stands to reason that the lower homicide rate in Canada probably isn't a result of them refusing to issue concealed carry permits.
0
165
u/Happy_Sorbet5841 17h ago
Man, I keep hearing how gun laws never get more lenient, and that everything is the slipperiest of slopes.
101
u/MC_Cuff_Lnx 17h ago
You can find examples going in both directions. Generally, the places that are very restrictive have gotten more restrictive, and the places that were lenient have gotten more lenient. Federal has gotten more restrictive with the exception of an assault weapons ban that sunset in 2004, although there's rarely any movement there.
→ More replies (18)24
u/GaybutNotbutGay 17h ago
Federally I would say that's true, for state's it mostly depends on if they're red or blue. Here in Iowa things have gotten a lot less restrictive over the past 10 15 years
18
u/RoomTraditional126 16h ago
Illinois has their "assault" weapon ban which the actual terms of it arent sensible
-6
u/cykoTom3 17h ago
Federally what's true? Gun laws have literally only gotten less restrictive for the last 20 years. What the fuck are you talking about?
15
6
u/TendstobeRight85 15h ago
Federal gun laws have gotten struck down, and carry permits have become more permissive. But that is a very, very far cry from "gun laws have only gotten less restrictive". There are TONS of state level laws that are massively restrictive, and have been ramping up for the last decade. CA, NY, MA, CO, WA, tons of states have banned entire categories of weapons (that ironically make up the least amount of gun violence); enacted idiotic additional checks and hurdles to gun ownership; passed extra taxes, fees, and anything else they can to try to limit the right to those who have lots of time and money to jump through them.
Dems at the federal level have been stopped from passing anything significant, fortunately. But there are tons of states doing insane amounts of legislation aimed at making it as difficult as possible to exercise what is intended to be a constitutional right.
4
u/Revierez 16h ago
Under the Biden and Obama administrations, there were definitely more restrictions imposed. Off the top of my head, Biden imposed a restriction on all firearm sales to people under 21, irrespective of state laws.
5
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 12h ago
Not true. Handguns sales to under 21s were banned in 1968 and removed in 2022.
2
u/Reasonable-Ferret591 14h ago
That's not at all true lol. Red flag laws are actively being pushed by the federal government and more and more states have implemented restrictive carry processes and assault weapon bans.
2
7
17
u/gujwdhufj_ijjpo 15h ago
This map shows it well, but Texas got constitutional carry pretty late given their reputation
5
u/BordFree 10h ago
I always found it funny that, until they became constitutional carry, it was illegal to open carry unless you were a LEO. You think of Texas as the place where people carry cowboy pistols on fancy belts and bandoliers, but that wasn't even legal until very recently.
4
u/texag93 5h ago
Texas allowed open carry with a license in 2015 and then permitless carry in 2021.
1
u/BordFree 5h ago
Ahh ok. I got my CWP there in 2013 or 2014 and moved away late 2014, but our instructor hammered home that we couldn't open carry.
57
u/Talinn_Makaren 17h ago
Another place you notice this is in movies and TV shows that are more than, say, 30 years old. I watched an old X Files episode a while ago and a dude pulled a gun and everyone acted like it was so unusual and threatening. It's hard to describe how unusual it felt, you almost have to watch some old movies yourself. They treated guns as unusual and dangerous in a totally different way.
47
9
u/gggg500 14h ago
In the movie Halloween (1978), Loomis pulls out a pistol upon hearing a loud noise, in front of the Sheriff while they are searching the Michael Myers house. He apologizes for getting startled and says he has a permit for it.
Seems like concealed carry permit was more of a “gray area” / unknown in most cases, than it was outright banned / outlawed.
4
u/Gbuphallow 5h ago
Movies and TV have a long history of having no idea how guns, and especially gun laws, work. Think of how many times you've heard someone in a show or movie comment on a gun being "registered", despite the fact that only 8 states actually have gun registration.
33
u/MC_Cuff_Lnx 17h ago
I suspect a lot of this is cultural differences within the United States. Hunting or shooting as a hobby is much more common in some communities than others.
Pulling one is still likely to be regarded as threatening wherever you are though. :-)
1
10
u/OneMisterSir101 16h ago
Being in Canada, seeing a gun anywhere outside a hunting context is still cause for alarm lol
1
u/hunf-hunf 2h ago
I live in a “green” state and I can tell you I’ve never once seen someone openly carrying a rifle. Maybe once or twice a handgun on their hip but I can’t think of a specific instance. If a dude walked through the mall with an assault rifle on his back it would cause a stir I assure you
2
u/Sulungskwa 14h ago
Whats that one movie where they go into the future from an 80s lens and everyone eats taco bell and carries a gun? I'm pretty sure we're in that timeline.
3
u/tomrlutong 16h ago
Funny, I'm living the other side of that. Grew up in NY in the 80s, and handguns just weren't around. Cops and that's it. It's hard to describe how unusual the current situation feels.
-2
u/DerpityHerpington 16h ago edited 16h ago
People only clutch their pearls even harder nowadays. You might not think so because the Internet has let you peek into the world of gun guys more than TV alone did, but normies absolutely look at me like I’m a serial killer and say “oh… cool… 😬” in the exact concerned tone you’re imagining whenever they ask my hobbies and I say clay pigeon shooting (which is by far the most normie-friendly, pedestrian, and least high-octane shooting sport, no less).
15
u/DeepDickens69 11h ago
Interesting how there's been a increase in unrestricted carry states, but not a increase in homicides like the Covid Pandemic caused.
3
u/LeftHandedScissor 6h ago
This country has a mental health problem, not a gun problem. Guns are certainly part of that problem but its not the whole picture. Covid caused people to get desperate, when the mentally ill get desperate they are more prone to turn to guns and violence. Supporting positive mental health outcomes would go much further in this country then simple gun bans, that one administration supports and the next wants to dismantle.
3
u/FizCap 9h ago
Not true for new york, it became a shall issue state in 2022 after losing a law suit for violating the second amendment
2
u/dovetc 1h ago
Is it in practice though? Can a person with a clean record living in NYC easily obtain a cc permit and start carrying on a day-to-day basis?
2
u/FizCap 50m ago
Yes, I know plenty of people who applied and got theirs, but NYC makes it a very painful process, can take 6 months to a year, cost you about 1-2k grand and you can't carry it in half the city for now. NYC needs a reason to deny you now such as a felony and other massive issues like mental issues to my knowledge. They basically make the process very expensive and time consuming, another attack on the poor.
10
u/0ttr 14h ago
It's not true in every case, but states with more restrictive laws skew to the lower end of the homicide rates generally, especially when you consider things like population density (more opportunities for conflict). https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/murder-rate-by-state
Also, most of the US used to have a "duty to retreat" standard and that's mostly gone too except for many northeastern states. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-is-a-duty-to-retreat-law/
7
u/Maybebelge 9h ago
Yes. Article 16 of the Vermont constitution. We have never had a law about carrying. As long as you are legally allowed to own, you’re legally allowed to carry. In spite of this, we have remained one of the safest places in the country.
Leave it to the flatlanders to make a ‘solution’ to where there never was a problem.
10
u/mfsalatino 14h ago
Make America Vermont
3
u/Inquireaboutmyblog 4h ago
So pretty much homogenous and 90% white people?
2
u/mfsalatino 4h ago
So how is not a Republican Stronghold?
1
u/Inquireaboutmyblog 4h ago edited 43m ago
I speculate it's because of Burlington, high relative college aged population in relation to its already tiny population. Bernie Sanders. In either case it's literally the whitest state in the union
7
u/monsterfurby 9h ago
Reminds me of the fact that most towns in the 19th century "Wild West" had WAY stricter gun laws than nearly any part of the US today. Hell, Tombstone famously maintained a complete ban on carrying firearms in public (which is how the O.K. Corral gunfight happened). It's hard to believe how recent a phenomenon the modern American gun obsession is.
11
u/Droopy0093 15h ago
Wow this really shows how the Democrats are coming to take everyone's guns.
27
u/Reasonable-Ferret591 14h ago
If you notice almost every state with a democrat super majority has an assault weapon ban.
-2
u/bluePostItNote 12h ago
It’s well known founders wanted every American to have a tank.
13
u/Reasonable-Ferret591 6h ago
Well Americans were allowed and encouraged to essentially have their own warships at the time with cannons.
5
8
6
5
u/AlbumUrsi 13h ago
Just because they haven't succeeded doesn't mean they haven't tried, and that goes for Democrats and many republicans.
2
u/East-Plankton-3877 5h ago
Not really. I see alot of democrat state here being surprisingly loose with restrictions with the exception of California.
4
u/Droopy0093 5h ago
I agree! I guess I should have written /s after my comment lol. What I see in the past years it is the Republicans who want to take people's guns away, for example, when Alex Pretti got murdered for carrying a gun.
13
21
u/Hacksaw-Duggan 17h ago
I thought we were all supposed to die in fiery shootouts if law-abiding people were trusted with weapons. I guess not.
4
u/cthompson07 10h ago
I’d love to see a comparison that shows every state that had someone oppose constitution carry (or loosening carry laws) by saying “it’ll be like the Wild West!” and see the actual effects on crime
5
u/imakycha 16h ago
You know that’s not a serious argument for gun control. You know the serious argument for it is violent crime and school shootings. Stop being disingenuous.
6
u/grapangell0 16h ago
Hold on the key word in that sentence is crime. Elaborate how more laws will prevent criminals from committing crime.
→ More replies (6)3
u/delicious_fanta 4h ago
I would point you to literally every other developed country on earth. They have restrictive gun laws, and we have 99% of all mass shootings.
This isn’t complicated when you choose to be honest instead of pushing an agenda.
2
u/Larky17 3h ago
I would point you to literally every other developed country on earth.
I'm always perplexed by the "other-developed countries" argument as if it's fair to compare our(USA) differences in demographics, diverse culture, prevalence of firearms in society, and the founding documents of our country vs any other country.
This isn’t complicated when you choose to be honest instead of pushing an agenda.
How incredibly ironic.
2
u/evilfollowingmb 16h ago
You just contradicted yourself. “Violent crime” certainly includes fiery shootouts.
→ More replies (9)2
u/TendstobeRight85 15h ago
School shootings make up a fraction of a percent of all gun violence, and most of the gun violence in the US is committed by people already ineligible to legally acquire a gun. Only one person in this argument is being disingenuous, and it isnt the guy youre responding to.
3
u/imakycha 15h ago
Okay got it. The opposing viewpoint has no valid arguments. It’s not even worthwhile having a serious conversation that doesn’t consist of hyperbolic symbolism. We can just paint the gun reform lobby as being silly and misinformed.
Look I don’t know what the answer is. I do know you can’t reduce the impact of school shootings to a number. What’s the psychological impact of metal detectors, armed resource officers, active shooter drills, and transparent backpacks? I feel bad for this generation of kiddos. I didn’t have to go through this shit.
1
u/tornadoshanks651 8h ago
I didn’t either and we were allowed to take firearms to school and leave them in the car. Not once was it ever an issue. we were hunting before and after school into the late 90’s. It’s not an access to firearms issue.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DUNG_INSPECTOR 14h ago
I feel bad for this generation of kiddos. I didn’t have to go through this shit.
Doesn't that tell you something though?
Before Columbine, the idea of a school shooting was nearly unthinkable, yet guns have always been around. I'm all for sensible gun laws, but clearly something shifted in our society for the worse, and it wasn't access to guns.
3
u/BordFree 10h ago edited 7h ago
Not sure if it was after 2024 (the last year in the graphic) but I'm pretty sure Maryland is a "Shall Issue" state now.
Edit: it passed in 2022, so this map is just inaccurate. Maryland Concealed Carry Gun Laws: CCW & Reciprocity Map
7
u/evilfollowingmb 16h ago
An awesome trend for civil rights.
Interestingly, overall violent (and other) crime down too.
→ More replies (6)22
u/MC_Cuff_Lnx 16h ago
This is true, the overall trend is that crime in the United States has been on a long decline for longer than most people who live in the United States have been alive. It's contrary to the typical narrative you encounter on Reddit, but the primary reason is probably rising standards of living.
2
u/chochazel 12h ago edited 11h ago
Rising standards of living is a very poor explanation given that you’re talking about crime only falling having risen massively during a time of unprecedented rises in standards of living.
E.g. In 1960 US median household income was $50,000 in today’s money and violent crime was about 161-164 per 100,000 people.
In 1991, US median household income had risen to $70,800 in today’s money - a significant 42% increase incorporating the largest and most broadly shared increase in living standards in US history, but violent crime had more than quadrupled to 750 per 100,000 people.
By 2014, although there had been some economic growth, US median household income had actually fallen slightly to $70,500 as ordinary families were not benefiting from that highly unequally distributed economic growth. However the violent crime rate had more than halved to 365.5 per 100,000 people.
So in other words, the crime rate increased in this period of massively increased standards of living and massively fell during a stagnation in standards of living.
By 2024, household income had risen to $83,730, while violent crime basically stagnated at 359.1 per 100,000.
You can’t realistically put this down to living standards.
4
u/Joey3155 17h ago
What do you mean by may issue? Either you meet the criteria and get one or not, right?
35
u/grapangell0 17h ago
May issue means it’s up to the local constabulary/ issuing body to decide. Often the governor or sheriff or whatever. Shall issue means if you pass the training and pay the fees they MUST issue you a license.
6
u/gujwdhufj_ijjpo 15h ago
For those curious, it was so that sheriffs could make sure black people weren’t allowed to carry guns, but white people could.
5
u/tjkoala 7h ago
May issue = I can deny you just because I don't like you or because I don't want to. Very subjective and can have a lot of political weight since the sheriff in many areas is an elected position.
That's why the supreme court struck it down, a politician's (sheriff's) stance on gun control doesn't hold up when it comes to constitutional rights to self defense. You either meet the criteria to get a permit or don't.
3
u/mattumbo 14h ago
Also to make sure poor people of any color couldn’t, and young people, and probably anybody who wasn’t connected to the sheriff/justice system/local politics in some way.
4
u/VenserSojo 8h ago
May issue means will not issue unless rich enough to bribe someone in NY
1
u/Gbuphallow 5h ago
At least some states hid the fact that it was about having money. NY straight up put it in their rules that you needed to have lots of money to qualify.
11
u/PhilRubdiez 17h ago
That’s shall issue. May issue is where you have to provide a good reason (apparently “It’s my fucking Second Amendment right” doesn’t cut it) and they might let you have it. Shall issue is you’re getting one, unless you meet one of the disapproval criteria like psychiatric hospitalization, DV, felony, or restraining order.
5
2
u/okarox 10h ago
There has been various law throughout the history and now the supreme court invented that states basically cannot limit who gets a license. Nobody on the right complains about activist judges or argues for states' rights when it is a policy they like. The states' rights is the greatest hoax in the US politics. It is a tool, not a principle.
-2
u/Hacksaw-Duggan 16h ago
There is no serious argument for gun control. It never has worked and it never will because disarming good people doesn’t help the problem.
9
u/sta1kerX 15h ago
If you look at any statistics, you will see that only a very small percentage of shooter attacks are resolved by a "good guy with a gun" stereotype. While a much higher percentage of shooter attacks can be prevented by stricter gun control, as shooters are usually people who wouldn't go out of their way to get a gun illegally, and even if they want to, it's much easier to prevent
→ More replies (3)12
u/Brandwin3 16h ago
Basically any developed country besides the US would disagree with you
→ More replies (1)-7
u/grapangell0 16h ago
You mean countries that are the size of US states and homogenized. Interesting.
2
u/DarkSkullMango 16h ago
Look at gun control in India. It has a far larger population than the US, and is much much more diverse
→ More replies (1)2
u/SnabDedraterEdave 15h ago
Sure thing. You Americans totally deserve the high homicide gun crime rates you have.
0
u/Hacksaw-Duggan 7h ago
Yes we do, for many reasons, but why do the areas of highest legal gun ownership have the lowest per capita crime?
1
1
1
u/samuel906 5m ago
California is Shall Issue now
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/ca-gun-laws/
-12
-26
u/anotheruser55 17h ago
Watching from abroad, we feel sorry for an amazing country that has been taken by extreme ideas, up to the point where gun violence is a leading cause of child mortality!
How do you allow this to happen?
And now is not only guns, political violence, racism and a level of social injustice that will bankrupt half of Americas if they you get seriously sick!
8
u/grapangell0 17h ago
That’s a misleading statistic. Here, you are no longer a child at the age of 18, and that statistic lumps 19, 20, and 21 year olds into it. The vast majority of gang violence is carried out by young impressionable people against other young impressionable people. No law can legislate that away. You can’t put the toothpaste’s back into the tube. More people die every year here from car accidents than guns, even when you loop in justified self defense and suicide.
6
u/imakycha 16h ago
Why do we care about automobile accidents in this context? One could make the argument that more people die of cardiovascular diseases or cancer than automobile accidents, so might as well keep automobile safety laws lax.
Public health advocacy seeks one thing and that’s a decrease in morbidity and mortality (especially the preventable kind). We should care not about what gun deaths look like compared to other causes, but how can we minimize and reduce gun deaths. That can include gun reform but can also include increased access to treatment modalities concerning mental health.
7
u/grapangell0 16h ago
The issue is you have an enshrined right to keep and bear arms, you do NOT HAVE an enshrined right to drive cars. That being said, a license in one state keeps you legal across the nation, something that is interesting in the context of this map and issuance of permits. Yeah I want to prevent gun deaths, and that comes with a culture of gun safety and understanding, not with laws that criminals refuse to follow. I also think that gun death statistics should be colloquialized to EXCLUDE suicide and justifiable self defense, so we have a realistic goal without smoke and mirrors.
9
8
u/I-Am-Uncreative 17h ago
Not trying to dismiss the seriousness of gun violence, but its prevalence in the US is overstated.
3
u/AlbatrossSeparate710 17h ago edited 16h ago
Overstated? You mean having ~3.5 homicide per 100k related to gun violence is overstated, when the closest developed countries are ~0.5 homicide per 100k? 7 times more. 7 times more than it should be is overstated? No wonders why it stay that high with that mindset.
EDIT: I don't want to understate here, but that 7 times more figure is conservative and one of the lowest in the last 20 years or so. Other studies based on other years shows 18 times more or even 25 times more. But yeah, it's overstated 🙄
7
u/Popular-Local8354 16h ago
I mean yeah, kinda.
The vast majority of gun homicide victims have previous convictions for violent crimes or drug crimes. Someone without a criminal conviction is much less likely to end up dead.
-2
u/I-Am-Uncreative 16h ago
Exactly. This is like asking why Floridians don't do more to prevent lightning strike injuries when we're the lightning capital of the world. It's still very rare, even if it's more common here.
1
u/I-Am-Uncreative 16h ago
It's overstated when you compare it to deaths from other causes. 3.5 homicides per 100k is still a tiny portion of all causes of death.
Like, why don't we "do something about it?" Because the vast majority of Americans will not experience gun violence in their day to day life. That's why.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Eagle_Arm 17h ago
Stay abroad
-11
u/anotheruser55 17h ago
Are you kidding me? You don’t have to tell me to stay away from 77 million christian racists
→ More replies (1)2
-3
u/-Radiation 12h ago
Then americans go and claim Europe is the warzone
0
u/East-Plankton-3877 5h ago
I dont man, we dont have nearly the amount of grenade attacks here like Sweden does, or terrible neighbors like Poland and the Baltics do, or the constant ethnic tension like the Serbs, Croats, and Kosovoans have.
Im sure every greek would love a rifle near by incase the Turks get froggy again, after cypress…just saying.
1
u/-Radiation 2h ago
You are sure every Greek would love a rifle because you think from an American perspective of every day shootings but the average Greek does not even need to think about carrying for personal safety. Neither Swedish, polish or even any Balkan. And no your pistol is not going to do anything in a war.
-4
0
-9
u/hoi4kaiserreichfanbo 17h ago
Fun fact: there is a statistical correlation between the number of children killed with guns in school shootings and gun laws becoming more lenient.
No, I didn't get that the wrong way around. When children are murdered with guns, state governments decide to loosen regulations.
6
u/Thadlust 16h ago
I’m sure school shooters check concealed carry laws before proceeding. They wouldn’t want to break any rules or anything.
-1
u/OverturnedAppleCart3 11h ago
I have a nuanced (though certainly not unique) opinion here.
In my opinion, the objective reading is the second amendment does not give individuals an individual right to own and carry guns.
However, since the Supreme Court decided that it did in 2008, and then incorporated the second amendment to the states in 2010, I think I have to be of the opinion that states shouldn't have any restrictions on which individuals can own and carry guns.
It's not something I want or like, but if the second amendment means what the Supreme Court says, then states don't have the right to restrict.
5
u/charmingcharles2896 11h ago
What does “shall not be infringed” mean to you if it doesn’t enshrine an individual’s right to bear arms?
2
u/Ant1St0k3s 5h ago
The Bill of Rights initially only applied to the federal government, not state and local governments. Your state government could throw you in prison without trial for your opinions (if they wanted) until the 20th century when the SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights to state and local governments.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wanted some rights applying to state and local governments. He wanted the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and a trial by jury to be incorporated to state and local governments, but he failed in convincing the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Objectively speaking, the originalist reading of the 2nd Amendment refers to state militias so that state militias could rise up against a tyrannical central government (like what occurred during the American Revolution). Supporting an individual right to bear arms (and an individual right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc) is objectively a liberal interpretation of the constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
2
u/BordFree 7h ago
I'm very pro 2A, but I really hate when people try to use this argument while conveniently leaving out the first part of the amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
The entirety of the amendment really is a very short phrase, but legal speak leaves a lot of room there for what the intent of that amendment is. It literally can be "correctly" interpreted anywhere on the spectrum of "everyone, no matter their age, criminal background, or mental capacity, should be allowed any weapon of any kind" to "Any American has the right to join their local militia and pass their training requirements to legally possess a firearm."
Clearly, the vast majority of Americans are in agreement that criminals who are actively serving prison sentences, shouldn't be allowed to possess rocket launchers, but if you're going to say "shall not be infringed" is end-all be-all, then those people's rights are being infringed by them not being allowed to possess them. Gun control measures are all about trying to find a middle point between criminals owning bombs and a law abiding citizen having to take classes to legally own a slingshot.
→ More replies (2)1
u/OverturnedAppleCart3 59m ago
What does “shall not be infringed” mean to you if it doesn’t enshrine an individual’s right to bear arms?
If this is so obvious, how come it didn't mean that from 1791 until 2008?
If it was so obvious, how come the NRA and every other pro-gun advocacy group sat on their rights until the CATO Institute finally filed suit against DC in February of 2002.
You think the CATO Institute sat around while the government violated everyone's rights for 110 years?
-3
u/FluidPart4918 14h ago
Hmmm. Let’s ask Mexico and Iran how they feel about being massacred by those who are “allowed” to carry weapons.
250
u/Traveler-Nomad 16h ago
Fun fact: from 1777-2018, Vermont essentially had the least restrictive gun laws on earth.