Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by ber950, Mar 30, 2006.
Nebraska passed their ccw bill out of the unicam.
Some interesting debate on pre-emption.
Nebraska = 40 "shall issue" states.
It does not go into effect until Jan 1, 2007 . . .
And, NE is the 47th state to have a licensing system or no requirement for a license to carry.
This leaves only WI, IL, and KS as states with no legal possibility of getting a license (although WI theoretically allows open carry, but not in cars).
I find that a little misleading, though. I know you couched your words carefully, so it is not to be untruthful, but, for example, Hawaii, technically a "may issue" state, is in reality a "no issue" state.
While it is "legally possible" to get a firearms license in Hawaii, they do not issue them.
The same occurs in other places as well. I imagine it is rather difficult in New Jersey, for example.
Other states have "may issue" in some areas and "no issue" in others. California is an example of that. Interestingly, California probably has the least places off limits of any state in the nation.
Is Alabama literally "shall issue?"
Alabama Section 13A-11-75
License to carry pistol in vehicle or concealed on person - Issuance; term; form; fee; revocation. The sheriff of a county may, upon the application of any person residing in that county, issue a qualified or unlimited license to such person to carry a pistol in a vehicle or concealed on or about his person within this state for not more than one year from date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he is a suitable person to be so licensed.
MP, what you say is true, although I had no intention to mislead. There literally are just 3 states with no legal possibility of obtaining a license. Which is worse -- a state with no possibility of licensing, or one that has licensing but never issues licenses? I don't know, but my comment was focused on the states that have no licenses. You already had commented on the number of shall-issue states. I merely was rounding out the report with the number of can't-issue states. Anyone can do the math and determine that there must be 7 may-issue states.
New Jersey: (from packing.org) "As of 12-30-03 there are a little over 3000 permits issued in a state of 8 million people. Most are held by retired law enforcement officers. (source NJSP)"
I also think they have a restricted permit system as well, but I cannot confirm that.
Here check this out,
No, I did not think you were intending to mislead anybody. It is just that I keep hearing this repeated, and it is misleading.
I wonder if Alabammy gets counted towards that 40th "shall issue" state (maybe I was being misleading? )
I have never heard of anyone being denied without cause in Alabammy, but it would be legal, reading the statute.
#1 = It needs to be updated.
#2 = THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT - Alabammy is shown in blue, which is the color for "shall issue." Alabammy is "may issue."
My understanding, based purely on anecdotes, is that AL technically is may issue but in practice is shall issue. Your cite to their code seems to confirm the former.
It is even stranger that people visiting from "shall issue" states, like Georgia, can carry while visiting a "may issue" state like Alabama . . .
But on Magnum P.I., Magnum frequently carried and I don't remember him ever facing any weapons charges.
On a slightly more serious note, that bounty hunter guy from Hawaii with the reality show, Dog Chapman, doesn't carry, but I think he may be a convicted felon.
Hey, if it's on TV it must be true....
In Georgia, that would disqualify him from his line of work, too.
In Georgia, that would disqualify him from his line of work, too.[/quote:1dw3np7r]
True true, since in GA bail recovery agents must be able to qualify for a GA firearms license before they can become a certified bail recovery agent.
But that is something I don't quite understand. Why are bail recovery agents only permitted to aquire a GA firearms license (OCGA16-11-129) but they cannot obtain a special weapons permit (OCGA43-38-10) that would enable them to carry where ever a LEO can carry, given their line of work?
I do not know that the premise of your question is true. I have encountered bond agents with the other license.
I do not know that the premise of your question is true. I have encountered bond agents with the other license.[/quote:2sxh5ssa]
MP, have a look here O.C.G.A. 17-6-56
If you currently know a bail recovery agent with a weapons license issued under 43-38-10, I would be very interested to know how they aquired it... unless they registered their bail agency as a security agency as well...
I do not know the answer to that question. I do remember when I was a police oficer being presented with the other license when I was ordered to ask bonding agents to leave a publicly owned building.
I did not inquire further into the circumstances of how they obtained it.
I read over at Clayton Cramer's Blog that Nebraska's law does not include preemption. Omaha has a complete ban on carrying firearms, so a license will not be good throughout the state. There is also no prohibition in the law for other municipalities banning carry . . .
Packing.org now says that Lincoln, Nebraska, is going to ban concealed carry as well.
They are going to end up with a patchwork of localities that ban carry. It might be a nightmare to research.