Concealed Carry Timeline

[Aube]

I thought this was interesting. Figured I'd share.

Seems like states are going more towards shall issue. No surprise though, Massachusetts hasn't changed.

 

[BearArms]

Texas...really?

 

[terraformer]

Texas...really?

Yes, CCW was, as the graphic shows, a rarity.

 

[Gonzo]

Texas is not, -nor has it been in my lifetime-, the firearms and liberty mecca it's so often portrayed as here on NES.

Agree. You can't even carry in bars there.

 

[EddieCoyle]

There are lots of places in Texas where you are not allowed to carry.

 

[drgrant]

There are lots of places in Texas where you are not allowed to carry.

It should be noted though that even though TX has binding signage, there is a catch to it- and that is, that even the places that post, usually don't post properly... and as far as the law is concerned, if they don't post properly, then the signs don't count. This means that despite all the "no guns in here dirty" signs, about 95% of them in TX are legally meaningless because whoever posted the signs didn't read the actual requirement in PC 30.06 . The reason for this, is because if they post correctly, the signs are pretty obnoxious. (IIRC the law says english and spanish, and the letters must be at least a certain height.... and EVERY public entrance must be posted. )

-Mike

In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."

Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:

1. includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
2. appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
3. is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Pay special attention to #1 and #2. Most posted signage in TX does not
meet either of these.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

It should be noted though that even though TX has binding signage, there is a catch to it- and that is, that even the places that post, usually don't post properly... and as far as the law is concerned, if they don't post properly, then the signs don't count. This means that despite all the "no guns in here dirty" signs, about 95% of them in TX are legally meaningless because whoever posted the signs didn't read the actual requirement in PC 30.06 . The reason for this, is because if they post correctly, the signs are pretty obnoxious. (IIRC the law says english and spanish, and the letters must be at least a certain height.... and EVERY public entrance must be posted. )

-Mike



Pay special attention to #1 and #2. Most posted signage in TX does not
meet either of these.

-Mike

#2 is the real killer. The sign would be nine ft square with both language versions.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

There are lots of places in Texas where you are not allowed to carry.

that is why I try to explain to people, that once you get through the MA bullshizz, and you get ALP, we have it much better here. Granted it is all that extra crap we have to deal with.....

 

[Larry Legend]

Makes me smile that my home state (VT) was green the entire time.

 

[drgrant]

that is why I try to explain to people, that once you get through the MA bullshizz, and you get ALP, we have it much better here. Granted it is all that extra crap we have to deal with.....

While we may have less "carry restrictions" here, it sure as hell is not "better." One's entire gun ownership rights in MA are at the whim of ONE person, with little or no due process. Keep that in mind. Even if you play golf with your issuing authority every week, if he strokes out you might still be screwed. This is before we even get into the business of a restricted
license.

NH (or for that matter, VT) are far better point of comparison. Less problematic than either system, by orders of magnitude.

-Mike

 

[william_munny]

Not to mention the restrictions on buying here in MA. No brand new high capacity mags. Permanent AWB. Most companies won't ship ammo here. Most handguns can't be sold here (still PO'd that I cant buy a Springfield Armory Operator). Need to jump through crazy hoops to buy a suppressor.

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[BearArms]

Yes, CCW was, as the graphic shows, a rarity.

Sorry,I first looked at this from my phone. It didnt show the animation.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

While we may have less "carry restrictions" here, it sure as hell is not "better." One's entire gun ownership rights in MA are at the whim of ONE person, with little or no due process. Keep that in mind. Even if you play golf with your issuing authority every week, if he strokes out you might still be screwed. This is before we even get into the business of a restricted
license.

NH (or for that matter, VT) are far better point of comparison. Less problematic than either system, by orders of magnitude.

-Mike

yea, all the stuff you just pointed out was all that "crap" I was talking about.....

 

[Jose]

Most CCW restrictions in free states are being rolled back. Can't say that about the crap you Mass guys have to put up with.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Most CCW restrictions in free states are being rolled back. Can't say that about the crap you Mass guys have to put up with.

maybe some, but certainly not "most"

 

[buketduder]

I see CT has been "shall issue" since the start of that map...I wonder the history of carrying handguns here in CT...i wonder when it started...

 

[JayW]

I was looking for more information on this. Wikipedia has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Shall-issue

Halfway down there is a chart with this information. I see Maryland and New Jersey marked at "May Issue" but there is a note saying "No Issue [In Practice]" associated with them as well. Thought that was interesting... and a bit sad.