© 2006 http://www.legallyarmed.com/
Laws have been enacted in 49 states allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Thirty-five states have "shall issue" laws. These states are: Alaska*, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Twelve states have "may issue" laws. These states are: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and Rhode Island.
Two states Alaska and Vermont, do not require any license or permit to carry concealed weapons in their states.*Alaska will issue a Concealed Weapon Permit to residents of Alaska who want to carry concealed weapons when they travel outside of Alaska in states that honor the Alaska Concealed Weapon Permit.
Each state that has enacted a concealed weapon law, has also established areas where concealed weapons may not be carried by the same people authorized to carry concealed weapons. This has caused a very dangerous problem regarding self-defense.
When laws are first established, they are written with areas that are a concern to the legislators who drafted the law. These areas that concern the legislators are written with safety factors so that they can be monitored after the law has been enacted. This allows for prudence to be implemented at the get-go for almost every new law. Over time, most laws are tweaked to make them better or, they are eliminated in place of a better law.
One of the key areas in any state that has enacted concealed weapon laws is where legally armed citizens may not carry the concealed weapon. In order to satisfy portions of the general public who do not believe in these self-defense laws and legislators who objected to these laws, compromises are a part of the legislative process. Some of these compromises have been made portions of every state law as to restricted locations regarding carrying concealed weapons. These restrictions normally exclude law enforcement personnel on or off duty.
With the majority of states now having a law allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, the areas of these laws addressing restrictions where concealed weapons may not be carried by individuals authorized under these laws, need to be reviewed and amended. Why? Because theses restrictive provisions have now led to "Kill Zones" for individuals who want to commit crimes and acts of violence. The reasons that created the impetus to bring these laws about, are now being violated!
Why do most law abiding people elect to pay the fees, go through criminal background investigations and even training, to become legally armed? They do it to abide by laws allowing them the opportunity of self-preservation. They do it so that they fall within boundaries created by law that allows them to protect themselves, their loved ones, and even other people, from the threat of predators. These laws were established to allow people a chance to survive. It is that simple!
Unfortunately, the restrictions imposed on these legally armed people, have allowed individuals who elect to ignore these restrictions to commit crimes and cause acts of violence. "Kill Zones" now exist because of the restrictions placed on legally armed people. These law abiding people are now hampered by the restrictive ingredients within self-defense laws. These restrictive provisions have created just the opposite affect of why self-defense laws were created, and have turned legally armed citizens into un-armed victims. Predators know this and are taking advantage of these dangerous provisions.
We can see from historical evidence, that the restrictive provisions of concealed weapons laws are dangerous to the very people these laws were created to help. Examine actual events listed below, where people committed crimes in locations where concealed weapons are not allowed.
As can be seen from these actual examples, these deadly events can be caused by individuals who have a criminal history, individuals who are not allowed to carry or own firearms, and even individuals who have been authorized by law to carry concealed weapons but have crossed over the fine line of being a sane person. Consider in each of these actual incidents, if just one legally armed person was present [in some cases they were on the premises but un-armed], how additional lives and injuries might have been prevented.
State legislators will not be inclined to change these restrictive provisions. They need to be challenged by their constituents within their districts. This is how laws are amended. This is not an easy battle to win but, it is a necessary step in making concealed weapon self-defense laws work the way intended...to allow for self-preservation. Here are some reasons why it will be difficult to amend these laws.
Restaurant associations will not want the law to change in those states that don't allow concealed weapons to be carried in locations that serve alcohol. This is true even if the legally armed citizens does not drink alcohol.
County or state governments will not like to change their provisions as to concealed weapons.
Judges may not like the idea of having law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons into their courts. Most Judges can carry in their own courtroom but, it did not help in the deadly courthouse shooting in Atlanta, Georgia.
Although North Carolina has addressed their state restrictions as to the carrying of concealed weapons by authorized individuals in North Carolina State Parks, most other states have not addressed this issue.
Sporting events, schools including higher education facilities, hospitals, local government, and other areas restricted from carrying all need to be reviewed and amended because this will prevent or reduces the damage caused by a criminal or violent event.
All these areas need to be addressed by law abiding legally armed citizens across America in their resident state.
Private commerce should be allowed to restrict access of concealed weapons within their premises but, this also allows legally armed people to commit their money to establishments that are not as dangerous and do not restrict access by law abiding legally armed citizens.
09/28/2006
WE (THE LEGALLY ARMED), COMPLETE EVERY REQUIREMENT OUR STATE
GOVERNMENT
DEEMS NEEDED TO PROVE WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND JUDGMENT TO ARM
OURSELVES, AND YET THAT SAME GOVERNMENT THINKS WE LOSE THIS KNOWLEDGE WHEN
MOVING FROM AREA TO ANOTHER. WHERE'S THE LOGIC? REFORM NOW.
-MIKE, NORTH CAROLINA
09/29/2006
Thanks for saying what most people think, but do not say. I went
through all the requirements to become legal to carry and, the first thing they
told me is where I cannot carry a weapon! Guess what, I still carry it and if I
ever had to use it, who is going to say to me "You would have been better dead
because we are now going to send you to jail for carrying a weapon where you
were not suppose to. You hurt the person who tried to commit the crime because,
he thought no one would be armed at this location. You did not play fair!"
-Roger, Alabama
10/24/2006
The police do a great job, and I thank them. They are, however, not obligated to defend each of us as individuals. This has been established by legal precedent. They can, however, deny us the ability to defend ourselves and our families buy denying permits, placing restrictions on permits. The legislature further restricts the legally armed citizen by placing prohibitions on WHERE we can legally carry a firearm. Meanwhile, the armed criminal, who has ignored EVERY LAW carries wherever he wishes and is emboldened by the knowledge that any licensed person is probably unarmed in these prohibited areas. I, personally, disagree with the thinking that because others, who do not wish to carry a firearm to defend themselves, if necessary, means I cannot carry my firearm with me in these currently prohibited areas. I live in a liberal gun "unfriendly" state that is most likely going to use the slimmest transgression to pull my permit. Meanwhile, the armed criminal moves around at will.
-Paul, Massachusetts
11/02/2006
GREAT ARTICLE! I have possessed a Tennessee Handgun Permit since
they were issued back in 1994. Back then it took almost a year to have them
issued because of all the problems with the Sheriffs. Now, the only problems
seem to be the vast number of locations where legally armed people are NOT
allowed to carry. If a few of our elected officials were chased around by a
some of the thugs and gang members in Nashville or Memphis, there would NOT be
so many places a legally armed person would be restricted from carrying their
firearm.
Tennessee now has two (2) regional listings on the "Most Dangerous Cities"
ratings. Jackson and Memphis. Do any of our elected officials think the
average thug or gang member won't carry a pistol were the law says pistols may
not be carried? Well, because of these restrictive laws, these little thugs
have the odds on their side when they want to commit a crime or just hurt
someone for fun.
This article hit the nail on the head. Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
-Tommy, Tennessee
11/03/2006
When on school property, it is the educators' duty to provide the safest possible environment for the students which is not possible when they are not allowed to carry on school property. It is also imperative that educators who are responsible for groups that do a fair amount of traveling to carry because of all the looney people that you are bound to encounter on the road.
-Jack, Tennessee
11/12/2006
The Democrats will now make even more restrictions on where legal guns may NOT be taken. This is why most criminals are Democrats. They help support the party that makes it easier for them to commit acts of crime and terror. I live in one of the most violent states and, legal people are not allowed to carry a gun for self-protection. However, any person who wants to commit a criminal act with a firearm gets to choose where they want to commit their crimes because the law abiding person is not allowed to protect themselves.
-John, Illinois
12/26/2006
There continue to be lots of crimes comitted in the Nashville parks so they want to install video cameras. Instead of invading our privacy they would be much more effective by removing the restrictions on those that are legally armed. Then the criminals would have to think about whether or not their intended victims were armed!
-Jim. Tennessee
Use the comment box below to add your comment on this issue. If you are a part of a Grass Roots State Organization that wants to take a position on this issue, let people know. If you are an individual who would like to get on the band wagon for this issue, let your voice be heard. And if you just want to add your "pro" or "against" comment about this article, use the comment box below. After reviewing each comment for language, it will be posted with this article.
We want this issue to be seen by a lot of people, please e-mail this article to a friend by clicking the button below. Thanks.
Enter your comments in the space provided below:
© 2006 http://www.legallyarmed.com/