File talk:Concealed carry across USA by county.svg

Yorùbá: Kolomaznik

I think you may have been using an old version of the California map. I changed the description to include the current version. Can you update the map based on this? Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it is not a problem, but current map is already reflecting Cali CCW issuing map. Kolomaznik (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Kentucky should be green now.Terrorist96 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I took care of it.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not problem, but one cannot be awake and online 24/7 :) And another note: About adding states prior to law being effective i.e. before the date of being effective. I think that right way is to wait for that date. Because otherwise it can confuse someone. Kolomaznik (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't seem to figure this out.

You may have noticed my little kerfuffle in the file history. I apologize for that. It seems that whenever I try to update the file with an updated version to account for Tennessee's constitutional carry bill being signed, it instead uses the old revision. I overwrote the original after modifying it in Inkscape, but it still refuses to use the new revision that shows Tennessee as a constitutional carry state.

Again, I apologize for that. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know what is your problem but is that problem with file itself or just only when you upload new version here? If the latter is true then it just could be your browser cache showing old version (try using anonymous mode on your browser to see if there is difference). From my POV: rev. 551329335 with desc. "Updated Iowa." you uploaded previous file with TN now in green, next rev. 551329376 "Uploaded wrong file. Will fix.", you reveted back to rev. 550702106 and with the third rev. 551329609 "Check discussion page for the reasoning. I apologize if this caused any disruption" you reverted back to your first change. And one more thing. There is reason map was not changed, because law will be effective on July 1 2021. So until that date, the Tennessee and Iowa should be shown as licenced shall-issue states. Same goes for the map of open carry. - Kolomaznik (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Map Update Rule?

Is the rule for updating the map, that a state only changes color when the change in law becomes effective, as opposed to when the law is enacted? Based on the latest revision as of April 10, 2021, that seems to be the case. However, it is worth noting that as of April 10, 2021, Utah is green, even though the new law is not effective until May 5, 2021, while Indiana and Tennessee are shaded blue (even though as of April 10, 2021, the new laws have been enacted, but are not yet effective).

Also, what is the cadence for updating the California counties? Based on the source document referenced for the California counties, https://www.baggss.us, the map is not current. LonghornBob (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, from my POV the map should change when (at the date or days around that date) the law or its change is effective (to not mislead someone by showing the state with changes that will occur after several months). I recently reverted this because Tennessee and Iowa are still shall-issue (both until July 1 2021, which helps one file change for two changes) and will be for almost 3 months, but Utah is only 3 weeks from now (I just took the easy way of revert to previous version, that explains the Utah and CA). Cali counties are updated á 3 months because that is general pace of updates on baggss.us (and the same file here on commons). I tend to group changes and edits in one, so CA counties (or any other county change), change in one state and changes in other state I want to do in one upload if they occur about the same time (like month or so) and in description of new version of file write the changes and dates when they became effective by law. - Kolomaznik (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... You reverted my changes because Tennessee and Iowa's laws aren't going to be in effect until July, but you made an exception for Utah because it'll be in effect in three weeks? Sounds to me like you're using double-standards. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Whenever I update the maps, I do not wait for the effective date of the law. I just haven't had time to update the maps recently.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty redundant. The original author is just now putting his foot down and pulling a double-standard after half a dozen changes, making it inconsistent with other maps? Yeah, no. Either be consistent or stop trying to revert my changes. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear MrThunderbolt1000T, I am so deaply dishonestly sorry that I am not glued to the wires of the internet 24/7 to respond to your complain without any delay :(. Now more serious. You are wrong. And I think it is all about your feelings being hurt, isn't it (based on what have you written here in talkpage and in edit summary of (now) current version of the file, "You reverted my changes", "stop trying to revert my changes", that whole edit summary and tears about inconsistency & double-standard)? I stated my reason why I did that the way I did. I gave you a lot of time to read it twice (or more) so you can understand it. It was NOT aimed directly at you. It was NOT aimed directly at you. I'll try making it easier for you (or someone like you): "You reverted my changes because Tennessee and Iowa's laws aren't going to be in effect until July" YES, it sounds clear to me. "but you made an exception for Utah because it'll be in effect in three weeks?" YES, and I wrote why: Utah is only 3 weeks from now because as I said in brackets I just took the easy way of revert to previous version, that explains the Utah and CA (well not the CA but honestly I forget about it when was doing revert and still not sure about LA being so permissive with like 400 ccws). In the other words: I used revert including fixes made before, which already included Utah as it will be from May 5. Again, I made a revert not the new version. I made it at least closer to the current state and I wrote the reason&dates in summary. Anything other about inconsistency. Trying to keep maps knowingly (more) actual is incosistent (and not making a lot of useless edits too)? I think that if map should show current state then it should be most close to it. Or making it knowingly false on purpose? No thanks. You or someone other could fix the Utah or other nonactual info in map (and I would be 100% ok with that because you know...consistency). But it was not something important for you and you rather turned to what? Blaming me. Also can you please list me maps I made this map incosistent with, except the maps you changed early too? Sorry it is long. Is it clear enough or should I explain something again (or something I missed)? - Kolomaznik (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

District of Columbia, USA

I noticed that the map does not define DC correctly. It should be solid red. They are the most difficult jurisdiction for gun ownership in the U.S.-- 2601:2C6:C080:4070:4A0:AFC5:89B7:7FEE 18:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As it was already said: DC is dark blue as it should be because is shall-issue thanks to Wrenn v. DC court decision. Map does not show how many hurdles one need to jump over if he wants to own or carry a gun in DC. - Kolomaznik (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The map has DC properly colored as dark blue. It is a shall issue jurisdiction by court order. See Wrenn v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2017). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._District_of_Columbia

It's the New York county map that currently has inaccurate information.LonghornBob (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New York State Map has clear errors

The New York map has clear errors. For example, Rensselaer county is light blue indicating it is a "Permissive May-issue (Shall-issue in practice)" jurisdiction. This clearly isn't the case, and in fact, is the subject of a case for which the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html The petitioner in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, No. 20-843, sought to have a license issued by the licensing officer in Rensselaer county that allows him to carry for self-defense purposes. The licensing officer refused. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NY-Gun-Complaint.pdf. With information as blatantly incorrect as this, the map should be removed until it can provide accurate information.LonghornBob (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I corrected Rensselaer county. Borysk5 (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You are totally right about map being inaccurate in information about NY (and to be honest in lesser degree for MA, MD+NJ); personally I was not aware that NYSRPA v. Corlett stems from this upstate county. That is definitely unpleasant and I know it from moment this file was uploaded that should be updated, I wanted to do it, but reliable sources are the problem. Which leads me to your statement that "the map should be removed until it can provide accurate information", which is totally off. So unless I missed it somewhere, you provided no reliable sources or offered no help with finding them, but the whole map should be removed? Not fixed like problematic areas/states labeled only as may-issue (like MD), but removed... Got it. "Until it can provide accurate information", well until you have reliable source for all may-issue areas, good luck with that. Please feel free to add all reliable sources, I and hope also the others will welcome that. Something like baggss for the NY or even may-issue part of Northeast will be great ;). I also could just complain about info on wiki being wrong or missing, instead of it I joined. - Kolomaznik (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback that my suggestion that the whole map be removed is less than helpful. I will provide my comments in a more constructive manner. I do think as you point out, “the lack of reliable sources are the problem” with identifying practices at the county level in certain states, and it merits consideration of an alternative. I will provide my comments regarding this under a separate header. LonghornBob (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Amendment to Certain May Issue Jurisdictions

As of Summer 2021, there are nine may-issue states, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

I think it is non-controversial that the entire states of Hawaii and New Jersey are labeled as red “Restrictive May-issue (No-issue in practice).” This is evidenced by various sources. Similarly, I think it is non-controversial that the entire states of Connecticut and Delaware are labeled as light-blue “Permissive May-issue (Shall-issue in practice).”

There are at least 4 states, California, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island, whose practices vary greatly depending on the local licensing jurisdiction. Maryland, I’m not sure if the practices vary widely by jurisdiction, or whether the policies are uniformly may issue without meriting a distinction between permissive and restrictive jurisdictions.

The map currently does not distinguish between counties in Rhode Island. The best publicly available information showing variations in issuances among jurisdictions in Rhode Island is from 2016. In addition, variations are due to policies within each city or town (rather than each county). See https://www.rifol.org/References/RI_CCW_Permits.pdf. Furthermore, a person could also seek a license from the Attorney General, instead of a city of town. Though, it is possible that some Rhode Island cities or towns may be “Shall-issue in practice”, given the lack of up-to-date information at the county level, I think the current status of the entire state as “May-issue” is a fair depiction.

The map currently distinguishes between counties in California. Because the issuing practices of the various jurisdictions are continuously monitored, and the map is regularly and periodically updated, at least in part due to real life feedback from active members of California’s community of gun owners, the distinction among counties in California makes sense. See https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=116.

The map also currently distinguishes between counties in Massachusetts. The best publicly available Information regarding issuing practices of Massachusetts licensing authorities I have found is from 2017. https://www.dropbox.com/s/n18zgquehgi60zz/2017%20LTC%20Scorecard.pdf?dl=0. However, this information is dated and the policy variations are at the city and town level, not the county level. Thus, I believe a change to the map with respect to Massachusetts is warranted.

The map also currently distinguishes between counties in New York. It apparently is based on a map that was last updated in 2011. https://www.nyfirearms.com/threads/revised-permit-map.6709/. Unfortunately, using this map to create county level information may be providing its users with obsolete or inaccurate information that undermines this worthwhile project to provide the public more precise information on the concealed carry licensing policies of various US jurisdictions. Unlike California, there does not appear to be a person committed to updating county licensing information on a regular and periodic basis. This is creating inaccuracies. For example, Genesee County is depicted as red “Restrictive May-issue (No-issue in practice).” This may have been the case in 2011. However, based on more recent publicly available information from real life experiences, this information appears out of date. https://www.nyfirearms.com/threads/revised-permit-map.6709/post-1553788. I believe a change to the map with respect to New York is warranted.

I do not suggest making any changes to California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, or Rhode Island.

I suggest changing Massachusetts and New York to another color (perhaps Orange), with a label “Varies from No-Issue in Practice to Shall-Issue in Practice by licensing jurisdiction.” I believe this would make the map more accurate, because due the lack of reliable up-to-date information, county level precision is not yet possible in these states. LonghornBob (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Massachusetts

As of July 9, 2021, the map currently delineates the counties within Massachusetts as follows:

Permissive May-issue (Shall-issue in practice):

1.	 Barnstable County
2.	 Berkshire County
3.	 Bristol County
4.	 Dukes County
5.	 Franklin County
6.	 Hampden County
7.	 Hampshire County
8.	 Nantucket County
9.	 Plymouth County
10. Worcester County
 

May-issue:

 1.	Essex County
 2.	Middlesex County
 3.	Norfolk County
 4.	Suffolk County

As mentioned in a prior post, because concealed carry issue policies in Massachusetts are determined at the city or town level rather than the county level, it may be more appropriate not to distinguish CCW policies at the county level with respect to Massachusetts, and just use a color to indicate there are variations among the issuing jurisdictions within Massachusetts.

The following scorecard, and map of the scorecard by city and town within each county, show that the variations are at the town and city level, rather than the county level.

1. 2017 Massachusetts LTC Scorecard; https://www.dropbox.com/s/n18zgquehgi60zz/2017%20LTC%20Scorecard.pdf?dl=0; Retrieved: July 3, 2021.

2. Map of the 2017 Massachusetts LTC Scorecard by city and town within each county; https://imgur.com/a/LaSo2QM; Retrieved: July 8, 2021.

Nonetheless, I understand that distinguishing CCW issuance policies in Massachusetts between counties may be useful in providing a directional indication of which counties are more or less restrictive than others. However, even in that regard, it seems that there are additional counties within Massachusetts that could more properly be labeled as “May Issue” rather than “Shall-issue in practice”.

 1.	Dukes County
 2.	Hampden County
 3.	Nantucket County
 4.	Plymouth County

Each of these jurisdictions issues new unrestricted permits at the same or lower rate than Essex County, which is shown on the map as “May issue”. See https://imgur.com/6kYHNPc; Retrieved: July 9, 2021.

The remaining jurisdictions of Barnstable, Berkshire, Bristol, Franklin, Hampshire, and Worcester counties issue new unrestricted permits at a 99% rate or higher, which, while not conclusive, could be a reasonable proxy to provide a directional indication that they are “Shall-issue in practice” jurisdictions. If this methodology is to be used, 99% seems to be the appropriate cutoff given that in 2015 the Rhode Island Attorney General approved new CCW licenses at a 98% rate, and the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office has been consistently described as a “May-issue” jurisdiction throughout the Wikipedia pages on the topic. https://www.wpri.com/news/few-have-legal-right-to-carry-concealed-handgun-in-rhode-island/

If the current map is based on more recent data, or a better methodology for providing a directional indication of the policy variations at the county level, this comment may be irrelevant. Otherwise, consideration should be given to showing Dukes, Hampden, Nantucket, and Plymouth as “May issue” counties. LonghornBob (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Rhode Island & DC

On July 20, 2021, the Goldwater Institute filed an Amicus brief in NYSPRA v. Bruen that discusses the various may-issue jurisdictions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184428/20210720160312532_20-843_Amicus%20Brief_in%20Support%20of%20Petitioners.pdf

The brief describes Rhode Island and DC as "shall issue in practice" jurisdictions, in addition to Connecticut and Delaware (pg. 11-14), and certain cities and counties in California, Massachusetts, and New York (pg. 15, note 8).

The map currently shows DC as dark blue ("shall issue") and Rhode Island as yellow ("may issue"), instead of light blue ("shall issue in practice").

Perhaps, this doesn't provide enough data to make a change. Perhaps, it's just worth monitoring for now. LonghornBob (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Within the past couple of days, Rhode Island has gone back and forth between "may issue" and "shall issue in practice". It currently shows Rhode Island as "shall issue in practice" citing the Goldwater Institute Amicus brief in NYSPRA v. Bruen as its source. When the brief came out, I wasn't sure this was enough evidence to change Rhode Island's status to "shall issue in practice".

However, for other reasons, I now believe there is probably sufficient evidence to treat Rhode Island as a "shall issue in practice" jurisdiction. As noted in a prior post, there is a table from 2016 showing the permit issuance rates by city and town from 2011-2015. See https://www.rifol.org/References/RI_CCW_Permits.pdf. Some towns and cities issued permits to virtually all applicants at the time, indicating they were "shall issue in practice" jurisdictions. Others, rarely issued permits, indicating they were variations among the towns and cities in their practices, giving me pause as to whether Rhode Island could be considered a "shall issue in practice" jurisdiction state wide. This, however, isn't as important as I once thought.

In Paiva v. Parella, 176 A.3d 480 (R.I. 2018), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed a case where a resident of the Town of Lincoln, applied for a permit in another town, East Providence. In footnote 6 of the case, the Rhode Island Supreme Court stated "Under Rhode Island’s current statutory scheme for concealed-carry permits, an applicant who has been issued a license or permit by another state can apply to any city or town in this state for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, regardless of whether that applicant demonstrates a tangible connection to that city or town. See § 11-47-11."

Thus, even if one resided in a Rhode Island town or city that was not "shall issue in practice", they can apply for a permit in a Rhode Island town or city that is "shall issue in practice" provided they have a permit from another state (such as a permit from a "shall issue" state that issues non-resident permits and does not require the non-resident to already have a permit from their home state). Thus, although it may require hoops to do so, I can now see how any resident of Rhode Island can obtain a permit under "shall issue" standards. As such, it seems appropriate to show Rhode Island as a "shall issue in practice" jurisdiction. LonghornBob (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

MrThunderbolt1000T's March 14 2022 Edits

I respectfully disagree with these edits of presenting Los Angeles County, California as a "shall issue in practice" jurisdiction. The comment that "Sheriff Alex Villanueva is issuing CCW permits to all residents in his county on more permissive criteria" is 100% correct. However, I don't think this yet merits treating Los Angeles County as a "shall issue in practice" jurisdiction.

1. Real world experience from Calguns.net forum members shows something more than a general desire to excerise self defense rights is required. For example, Post #10371 from March 10, 2022 states "In 2020 there were 238 issued permits in LA county. The tail end of 2020 was when the policy changed. Current numbers are at 2367 so it’s 1000% percent increase. There is no cap as evidence by several members who recently picked up that there was a lot of people picking up. Denials are going up because more people are applying and as with everything else people are getting lazy in their good cause statements. They hear LA county is issuing and send in an app that was probably lacking in evidence or little more than “self defense “. A few of the denials posted on here fit in this criteria and the others didn’t post enough detail for us to know one way or the other." https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=26716578&postcount=10371

Anything other than a general desire to excerise self defense rights to show "good cause" or "proper cause" should remain "may issue."

2. The baggss.us map (http://www.baggss.us), which generally has been used as the basis for updates to this map for California counties: (1) still shows Los Angeles as "light green"; and (2) "light green" California counties have been labeled as "yellow" or "may issue" on this map.

One additional comment is that the addition of the category of Constitutional Carry states whose laws are not yet in effect is an important and valuable addition. Thank you for doing this. Only minor comment is that a color other than fuchsia, such as aqua, might be preferable. Fuschsia has red tones and blue tones in it, which implies going from no issue in practice to shall issue, where aqua, has blue tones and green tones, which implies going from shall issue to constitutional carry. LonghornBob (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The reason I found it necessary to change LA County from may-issue to shall-issue in practice is because LA County has been issuing permits based on recreational risks, which sounds to me like, "I go hiking and I would like to conceal carry to protect against lions tigers, bears, oh my" (if you get the reference, you're good in my book). I'll do some further research into this for now, but it sounds to me that as long as you can articulate a simple recreational risk on your application, LASD will issue a permit.

As for the color, I chose it because it's far off from the other colors so as to be easily distinguishable on a map. I have done some editing of the stand-your-ground article and associated map, and I personally found it irritating to look at because of the color scheme of "this state is aqua, this state is slightly darker," so I chose fuschia because it's very distinct. I wouldn't be offended if it was changed, but the idea that readers may be misled by the color personally doesn't make sense to me. People are reading a legend to interpret the map correctly, so they're going to understand what the color means. I'm also not sure of this, but an idea popped up into my head that fuschia may be more discernable to certain colorblind readers because of the mix of red and blue, as you pointed out. It wouldn't matter though, there's enough colors on the map to diminish from that benefit. I appreciate your bringing all this up, it makes it way easier to reach consensus on the direction of this page. Thank you. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct in that LA County is currently issuing CCW permits for recreational risks that are easily articulated. It may be a matter of methodology. If you look at the bagss.us map, also found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:California_CCW_Issuance_Map.png, the current policy of LA County is to issue permits based on recreational risks, or "light green". Previously, counties that required at least the articulation of recreational risks to issue CCW permits have been "yellow" or "may issue" on this map. The distinction of "may issue" jurisdictions into "shall issue in practice", or conversely "no issue in practice" is inherently subjective.

I am not opposed to treating counties that issue based on recreational risks as "shall issue in practice" if it is done on a consistent basis. If the decision is made that this should be the case, my only comment is that there are other counties in addition to LA County that would qualify for this category as indicated in the described maps.

As far as the color for states that have passed Constitutional Carry laws not yet in effect, I see your point, and it makes sense. LonghornBob (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking through this more and think there is a way to incorporate your point on the county of Los Angeles, similar counties in California, as well as Rhode Island. I think perhaps it's time to change "Shall Issue in Practice" jurisdictions to "dark blue", and then change the "dark blue" legend to say "Shall Issue or Shall Issue in Practice". All current light blue jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Delaware, and certain counties in California, New York, and Massachusetts would change to dark blue. That frees up "light blue" for jurisdictions with reasonable good cause that are not difficult to meet, such as Los Angeles and similar counties, as well as Rhode Island in my opinion. LonghornBob (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

NYSRPA v. Bruen

The issue of changing this map has come up. There's going to be debate about whether to change all may-issue jurisdictions on the map to shall-issue, or to leave them as-is until state laws are changed through legislative action or appellate court rulings.

My view on what constitutes the correct interpretation is that we should change all may-issue jurisdictions to shall-issue. These jurisdictions use statutes that leave discretion up to issuing officials. It's straightforward logic that instead of waiting for state laws to change through the aforementioned processes, issuing officials will issue CCW permits as if their state's law was shall-issue. Until we see any jurisdictions that attempt to disregard Bruen, the map should read as shall-issue for these de jure may-issue jurisdictions. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

As of July 19, 2022, government officials of each of California,Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island (permits issued by municipalities only) issued guidance that their "proper cause" (or similar) requirements would no longer be enforced.

Updating the map to show them as shall-issue was the correct call. LonghornBob (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)