Talk:Concealed carry in the United States

Federal law versus federal laws

I am pretty sure that the correct grammar for discussing a body of law is singular. As with Federal law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

how do I add a new setcion

why cant we put in FACTS of people who used concealed carry to be able to murder a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii information is wrong

After researching this, the article may need adjusted for Hawaii as I found multiple sources stating that Hawaii is a "May Issue" state that not only issues CWP but both recognizes other states and is recognized by other states. I am including sources here for research purposes -

http://www.usacarry.com/hawaii_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

http://www.lcav.org/states/hawaii.asp#carryingconcealedweapons

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm

Alexkraegen (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Hawaii has a "May Issue" law, but chooses to issue very rarely. Your sources don't contradict that.

--jdege (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

jdege - Did you review the article, I don't see anything to back up your statement.

Directly from the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#No-issue "Hawaii is also a no-issue state."

Also the grid to the right of the article clearly identifies Hawaii as a "No-Issue" state. That information is wrong.

Alexkraegen (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a conflict: The .gif map shows Hawaii in yellow (which seems to be correct). 75.196.99.239 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

USACarry.com External Link

I have tried adding USACarry.com to the external links section but it is being removed just because it has forums. This site has a lot more information pertaining to this exact subject other than just forums. See some of the links below.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_ccw_instructors_by_state.html http://www.usacarry.com/list_of_gun_ranges_by_state.html

It is even used on this talk page to verify some information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States - Under Hawaii Information is wrong. --Kahman (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone responding to this but respond to other items on this page? Kahman (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When I check the forum at USACarry.org I see that you are a member of that group. Checking your contribution history at Wikipedia, I see that you have a history of inserting links in Wikipedia pointing to your group spanning several years. This may be viewed as WP:WPSPAM. Please review and follow the conflict of interest guidelines at Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a member because I am active in the concealed carry community. I am also a member of the NRA which is linked on the site and many other online gun forums. But I am not trying to add every site I am a member of, only a site that has valid information pertaining to this article on wikipedia. Why is the site used to validate information on the wikipedia talk pages but not linked to in the external links??? Kahman (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Content

On the whole, the information on this page is pretty good, although it appears to be missing some key items (i.e., discussion of concealed carry laws by Justice Scalia in the D.C. v. Heller decision, the role of the NRA and gun lobby in enacting CCW laws from 1980-2000 and then liberalizing them in the 21st century, specific state-by-state requirements for CCW training, the role of Sen. Coburn in allowing concealed handguns in National Parks, etc.). There's also a bit of content that is not relevant to the topic at hand (i.e., the Centerwall and Kates studies).

More than anything, though, this article would benefit from a simple reorganization. There is a lot of redundant content here (i.e., restating state law several times) and content that seems to be under the wrong header (i.e., Court Rulings not falling under Legal Issues).

A more streamlined organization might look something like this:

INTRO, FEDERAL LAW, STATE LAW (Permitting Policies, Reciprocity, Training Requirements, Laws Regarding Carry in Vehicles), LEGAL ISSUES (Court Rulings, Legal Liability Issues), RESEARCH AND STATISTICS, POLITICS (Support, Opposition) Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The general disorganization of this article has been bothering me too, and I agree that it could be improved through some trimming out the repetitive issues and reorganization in more easily understood section titles like you propose. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The categories you propose are logical and will help make this topic easier to navigate. --PFS (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Just completed the reorganization as described above and took out quite a bit of redundant (or irrelevant) content. Hopefully this will be more streamlined, on topic, and easy to read. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive Conflict of Interest

It is pretty hilariously Ironic that SaltyBoater, who is in an editing collusion with ForwardThinkers (see their respective editing histories and Talk page chatter) on this and other RKBA articles is crying foul on COI. Do the other editors realize that ForwardThinkers is the NEW EDITING NAME of a full-time paid lobbyist for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV)--a gun control group? In fact, "CSGV "was his old editing sign-in name. Talk about conflict of interest! ForwardThinkers has been repeatedly warned in the past not to make substantive edits to gun rights pages by other editors and admins, yet he persists in doing so. In fact, he just totally re-organized this page, injecting his meddlesome POV.[1] This sort of meddling by paid lobyists and their cronies is POISONING wikipedia, and compromising its neutrality Something is rotten in Denmark, and some Admins should be told about it.173.84.198.107 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as lobbyists stick the rules of Wiki, I don't see why there is a conflict of interest. We don't know what anyone's day job is on Wiki. That's the beauty of the rules - as long as we stick to them, we can work towards a balanced approach to any given topic. In this case, the section has been simply reorganized and consolidated, which is consistent with Wiki guidelines on what makes a good article. I don't see the problem.--PFS (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added some research on public opinion about carrying concealed. I also made some small edits to better characterize the research on concealed carry. I'm not sure how to handle the controversy around John Lott's work on this topic. There have been many questions raised about how it was done, that he apparently "lost" his data set when asked to produce it so others could analyze it, and that he posed as another person on a blog and praised his own work, etc. All important bits of information but I will have to see what verification I can find about it all.