Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd have a concern about how other states reciprocity would be affected by this change in Wyoming's statutes when we travel out of state. We certainly woudn't have as rigorous a permit qualification process as they have ....
The present permit system won't change for that very reason. But reciprocity is strange sometimes. Indiana, which has a very rigorous process, honors permits from all states. Nevada, on the other hand, which is perhaps as rigorous as Utah and Wyoming, honors no other states' permits.
But the states that allow concealed carry without permits need to extend the law to include everyone. Alaska does not. and the new law here won't recognize their right. There was a proposed amendment to do so; but it was defeated. I don't know about Arizona. Vermont has no state law whatsoever, so anyone can carry concealed. But cities can pass laws, unlike Wyoming.
We need to get it through first. Then we can expand it. I believe a lot of tourists from Illinois, Wisconsin, and other infringed states would enjoy packing while they're here.
The thing, elkhunter, is that the people you fear will be able to carry a gun without a permit can and do already. Permits are a little bit stupid IMO. I've got an Idaho and Utah CCW but I would carry a weapon if I felt like it, permit or not. I got the permits only because they were easy to get. But I've carried concealed for years even in a state that didn't issue permits.
I don't fear anybody. And I agree with you that "some" will carry no matter what. But I'm not talking about the gangsters, the wannabe's, the robbers, the thugs, basically the people that don't give a crap now. I'm talking those people that are questionable, but haven't stepped over the line to have a record, but currently wouldn't carry because they fear what would happen if they got a weapons violation.
Nobody can tell me that if they look down the street, if they look at their co-workers, their classmates, their inlaws, that they fully believe each and every one of them should and could, carry concealed.
Sunsprit, when I talked to the rep for Sheridan area, he said that you would be able to still get a permit should you want one and that would be used for reciprocacy with other states. I downloaded the new bill but haven't had a chance to look at it yet. But that was last year so that may have changed. You know how legislation is from one day to the next.
As I recall from reading before the legislative session started, there were two concealed firearms bills being introduced. One was for former (or retired?) law officers, and the other one was for everyone else. I'd have no problem with former lawmen CCW, but I'm with ElkHunter on the other one. It just makes me a little nervous.
Permits are easy enough to get. I don't see the problem with them the way it's been the last several years. I just worry about some of these guys who get drunk and get into fights. It's bad enough as it is -- with fists, knives and 2x4s. Arm them with a .38 in their pocket and I'm afraid somebody is going to get shot and killed that otherwise wouldn't have. Heck, cowboys in the old west even had to turn in their weapons in Dodge City to help keep the peace.
And don't give me the "We're restoring freedom" crap. I don't buy it. This bill removes the requirement of having a fingerprint taken. It removes the requirement to demonstrate proficiency. It removes the requirement of a background check. It removes the requirement of paying a fee every 4 years. If the current law keeps the crazy people from carrying a weapon concealed, I'm all for it. I'll pay the fee.
Why can't people get the permit? Are they afraid? Can they not pass a background check? Are they not proficient with a firearm? If they can't do those three things, I don't want them carrying a weapon concealed.
I'm from Indiana and we have a license/permit system here. We have a life-time option where you pay $160 or so and you get the paper and it is good for life. Indiana is a shall issue state, and there are a few reasons you can't get the license to carry. The license/permit allows for CC or OC and doesn't demand either or. There is no test either.
The reason I wish they would do away with the license/permit requirements are:
#1: I'm not sure how it is in WY, but in Indiana, having a handgun w/o a permit/license is nothing but a slap on the wrist, over and over and over and over. Hell, we are lucky enough for a felon in possession (state law, not federal) to get maybe two years in prison. To me, if the entire reason for the license/permit is to let the law abiding carry, and keep the bad people from carrying, then when the bad people are carrying, punish them. Giving slaps on the wrist over and over isn't a punishment in my opinion. How about a three strikes and your out?
#2: I feel it is better to remove the requirements than have them. The problem I have with fee and testing requirements are that they can easily be manipulated. The fee in Indiana is $160 for a lifetime license. The license is nothing more than a pink sheet of paper. You can still get a 4 year license for $40ish, and it is the exact same. What happens if anti-gunners get into power and decide the fee should be $1,000/year? What if the written testing gets revamped and only has a 75% pass rate? What if you have a shooting test, and the test is 10 rounds in a 2" square from 25 yards? Personally I don't mind the license, the fingerprinting, and the background check. However, there should be not requirements outside of that and maying just the minimal fee for license. Licenses also should be shall issue, this keeps anti-gun head LE types from blocking people in their jurisdiction from getting a license (In Indiana, you apply initially at the law enforcement agency that serves the area where you live).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter
The State of Wyoming is already an "Open Carry" state. You can strap on a loaded pistol to your belt and go just about anywhere you want to go in the state. There are limitations, like courtroom and such, but that's only common sense.
If you can OC without a permit, then it seems really silly to make people get permission from the state to throw a hoodie on, or put on a coat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter
Yes, Wyoming is an Open Carry state.
I've never seen a problem here. I've even seen people in Wal-Mart with a side-arm belted on.
If there isn't a problem with OCing w/o state permission, then why do things change because the person in the above example decides to untuck their shirt, and now it is covering the gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Indiana, which has a very rigorous process, honors permits from all states.
Indiana does recognize any permit from any state or country, however our process is anything but "rigorous." You go to your local LE agency, pay your money, get fingerprinted, and a few weeks later, you get the license.
I'm from Indiana and we have a license/permit system here. We have a life-time option where you pay $160 or so and you get the paper and it is good for life. Indiana is a shall issue state, and there are a few reasons you can't get the license to carry. The license/permit allows for CC or OC and doesn't demand either or. There is no test either.
The reason I wish they would do away with the license/permit requirements are:
#1: I'm not sure how it is in WY, but in Indiana, having a handgun w/o a permit/license is nothing but a slap on the wrist, over and over and over and over. Hell, we are lucky enough for a felon in possession (state law, not federal) to get maybe two years in prison. To me, if the entire reason for the license/permit is to let the law abiding carry, and keep the bad people from carrying, then when the bad people are carrying, punish them. Giving slaps on the wrist over and over isn't a punishment in my opinion. How about a three strikes and your out?
We are talking two different things here. Carrying a weapon concealed. And licensing a firearm.
Indiana does not require a permit to purchase firearms. A handgun license is required for personal protection (carrying), hunting, and target shooting.
There is no gun registration or license in the State of Wyoming.
For those that break the law, if your judges are weak, don't keep voting them back into office.
Quote:
#2: I feel it is better to remove the requirements than have them. The problem I have with fee and testing requirements are that they can easily be manipulated. The fee in Indiana is $160 for a lifetime license. The license is nothing more than a pink sheet of paper. You can still get a 4 year license for $40ish, and it is the exact same. What happens if anti-gunners get into power and decide the fee should be $1,000/year? What if the written testing gets revamped and only has a 75% pass rate? What if you have a shooting test, and the test is 10 rounds in a 2" square from 25 yards? Personally I don't mind the license, the fingerprinting, and the background check. However, there should be not requirements outside of that and maying just the minimal fee for license. Licenses also should be shall issue, this keeps anti-gun head LE types from blocking people in their jurisdiction from getting a license (In Indiana, you apply initially at the law enforcement agency that serves the area where you live).
So if we remove the test and license requirements for driving, then we will be much safer on the road?
Wyoming does not test. They fingerprint, they require a class where you will demonstrate profficiancy and they require a complete back ground check. The back ground check is 13 or 14 pages long and is very detailed.
Quote:
If you can OC without a permit, then it seems really silly to make people get permission from the state to throw a hoodie on, or put on a coat.
If there isn't a problem with OCing w/o state permission, then why do things change because the person in the above example decides to untuck their shirt, and now it is covering the gun?
Indiana does recognize any permit from any state or country, however our process is anything but "rigorous." You go to your local LE agency, pay your money, get fingerprinted, and a few weeks later, you get the license.
One of the ideas of having a Carry law that has requirements is that you weed out those people that are otherwise questionable. It makes me wonder who is pushing this legislation, people with permits or people that have been turned down for permits for one reason or another.
If this law passes, then any would be thug can conceal. Any person who is bypolar and heavily medicated, can conceal. Any person who is on meds for depression and has even been institutionalized, can conceal. Any habitual alcoholic can conceal. Any person who has been taken to jail for domestic violence, can conceal. Any drug dealer or drug addict who hasn't yet gotten a felony, can conceal. Any person, who has never fired a gun or practiced, can now conceal. Yep, that will certainly make me feel safer.
At lease if they are open carrying, I can see it and watch that person or at least be aware that they have a firearm.
The laws don't stop the hardened criminals, but it does stop the fence riders.
The way I read the changes is only the fact that you don't have to have a CCP. The requirements to be able to carry legally are exactly the same as before--just minus paperwork and hoop jumping. If you carry concealed and are found to not meet the below requirements, then you're breaking the law. If you meet the requirements you're free to carry. Boiled down, it's as simple as that.
Quote:
The changes to the law (passed today by the Senate)
(a) A person who wears or carries a concealed deadly weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both, unless:
(iii) The person holds a valid permit authorizing him to carry a concealed firearm authorized and issued by a governmental agency or entity in another state that recognizes Wyoming permits and is a valid statewide permit;. or
(iv) The person does not possess a permit issued under this section, but otherwise meets the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(i) through (vi) of this section and possession of the firearm by the person is not otherwise unlawful.
The existing requirements necessary
Quote:
(b)(i) Is a resident of the United States and has been a resident of Wyoming for not less than six (6) months prior to filing the application. The Wyoming residency requirements of this paragraph do not apply to any person who holds a valid permit authorizing him to carry a concealed firearm authorized and issued by a governmental agency or entity in another state that recognizes Wyoming permits, is a valid statewide permit, and the state has laws similar to the provisions of this section, as determined by the attorney general, including a proper background check of the permit holder;
(ii) Is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(iii) Does not suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a firearm;
(iv) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 922(g) or W.S. 6-8-102;
(v) Has not been committed to a state or federal facility for the abuse of a controlled substance or convicted of a violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act of 1971, W.S. 35-7-1001 through 35-7-1057 or similar laws of any other state or the United States relating to controlled substances;
(vi) Does not chronically or habitually use alcoholic liquor and malt beverages to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired. It shall be presumed that an applicant chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired if the applicant has been involuntarily committed to any residential facility pursuant to the laws of this state or similar laws of any other state as a result of the use of alcohol;
Quote:
Note that this requirement is left out (unless you're applying for a CCP)
(vii) Demonstrates familiarity with a firearm. A legible photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes or a notarized affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization or group that conducted or taught the course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation of firearms competition, shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph
One advantage to requiring a permit, depending on viewpoint I suppose, is that when an officer makes a traffic stop or calls in your driver's license information the CCP is "linked" to that license. They know immediately that you could be carrying(and will ask)--but they also know you've jumped through those proverbial hoops to carry concealed. They know that you're very likely a law-abiding citizen and not going to be any trouble.
On the other hand, however, if your lifestyle choices show a proclivity towards being a druggie or alcoholic, a thug, mentally disturbed, etc.--then (a.) you probably already know you don't qualify and won't even try to apply, and/or (b.) you probably don't care. The criminal element, by definition, couldn't care less whether the law is passed or not--if they want to carry they certainly will regardless of a piece of paper sitting in the state capitol.
While I am mainly for this change in the bill, I do see, at least partly, Elkhunter's and others concerns-- mainly for this reason: The people who did not want to go through the steps of acquiring a CCP, or those who are too lazy to look up the requirements, just may feel emboldened or curious to see what "packing heat" feels like. The majority of people I know are more than competent to carry (and do), but there are a few I know that shouldn't touch one--until they've at least taken a course or three.... Sure, weeding out those who shouldn't carry is the intent of CCP's (or is it? -- there's certainly other "discussions") but when the process is like putting a hand net in a river where the holes are big and it's easier to just swim around it, then that good intent only ensnares those who willingly swim into it.
There's a very heavy responsibility with carrying a firearm regardless of the open or concealed issue. And regardless of whether you're "legal" or not, if you pull it for whatever reason, justified or not, be prepared to be arrested and in a court battle--even if that proverbial fantasy of "saving the day" ever came to fruition. The legal ramifications are daunting--and if you don't know your rights and the law you very well could be in for more than you're prepared for.
I hate the government intrusions that are daily lowering a suffocating blanket on all of us--so any move the other way is good to me. This is a complex issue, but I'll take freedom over tyranny any day. Time will tell whether the people here in WY take it seriously and take the time to learn what carrying responsibly is about, or whether they throw caution to the wind and ruin our chances of keeping our rights for those who have.
There's a very heavy responsibility with carrying a firearm regardless of the open or concealed issue. And regardless of whether you're "legal" or not, if you pull it for whatever reason, justified or not, be prepared to be arrested and in a court battle--even if that proverbial fantasy of "saving the day" ever came to fruition. The legal ramifications are daunting--and if you don't know your rights and the law you very well could be in for more than you're prepared for.
- snip -
When I got out of the service and moved back to Sheridan, I went in and got my permit after establishing residency. Because of my time in service, I was exempt from taking the class. However, I enrolled in a class anyhow. Simply because of what you stated. I wasnted to know current laws, restrictions, and law enforcement viewpoints, so I signed up for a class.
The class was a real eye opener. People have views of what they will do in a situation. These views are concocted from listening to neighbors and relatives who also listened to neighbors and relatives of which none of them ever checked into the laws and had those laws interpreted by a professional. Most often, those concocted views are filled with passion, fear, and obsolete or incomplete knowledge. When you have to pull a firearm, those things should not enter into the equation at all.
I have a neighbor who insists that Wyoming Requires Gun Registration and that all of his guns are registered. He will not listen to anything else because "He knows".
One advantage to requiring a permit, depending on viewpoint I suppose, is that when an officer makes a traffic stop or calls in your driver's license information the CCP is "linked" to that license. They know immediately that you could be carrying(and will ask)--but they also know you've jumped through those proverbial hoops to carry concealed. They know that you're very likely a law-abiding citizen and not going to be any trouble.
These are two different subjects. Being required to inform a cop that you are bearing arms has its own problems.
In 1966, long before I lived here, I had a minor traffic accident in Rawlins. An officer who witnessed this apparently called for assistance. For Rawlins, it was probably the story of the day. When a police lieutenant came out to take the report I asked him about Wyoming gun laws. His response impressed me that I remember it word for word to day. "You have an absolute right to carry a gun. Get in trouble with it? Go to jail? When you get out you get your gun back." Even back then there were more laws. But that's how he and his department enforced them. He even suggested that if we were in a bar, we should carry; we took his advice. And why shouldn't an individual who's paid the price of a crime get his guns back? People get all of their other rights back; some rights are never lost, even in prison. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, not many states nor the federal government thought that felons lost their constitutional rights. Just because Obama and Scalia consider the Second Amendment to be an inferior amendment, doesn't mean that it is.
I was also impressed by the fact that the police in Rawlins cited the other driver, a local resident. They were good in more ways than one. I'd like to meet that police lieutenant again; he was a good cop.
I also suggest that you check out Wyoming Gun Owners after you watch the video; good folks.
I agree, they are two separate subjects. I like don't ask don't tell.
I've been in a couple of situations where I had to tell though--luckily they were both positive.
On one occasion I got stopped for speeding while hurrying to work at the airport. The officer took my license and registration back to his vehicle to check me out. Upon his return, he asked me the usual questions -- where are you going, why were you speeding, etc. -- and whether I was carrying. At that point I wasn't going to lie, because if, for whatever reason, the stop escalated (very unlikely, but still...) and I was required to get out, then lying about it would've made things much worse. So when he asked the question I said, "Yes sir, right here," pointing with my finger. His response, and I quote, was, "Good. Everyone should." And with that he let me go on my way. Ticketless I might add.
Also, last year I was in an accident and hit by another truck on the icy roads. Totalled my beautiful truck. When the Highway Patrol showed up I eventually had to get in the car with him to write up the report (it was cold, windy, and miserable out--plus the windows were all broken in my truck--it was a long, cold wait for law enforcement.) Since I was now entering his domain, I felt the necessity to inform him that I was carrying. Whether I should or shouldn't have I don't know, but he did appreciate it. All he said was, "I don't care, just don't pull it out. Thanks for letting me know." That was that.
Again, I like that it's not required here. I agree that it could lead to roads we don't want to, and shouldn't have to, travel.
BTW, I read that site often....
Last edited by Cloudfish; 01-24-2011 at 07:05 PM..
Reason: Redundancy.
So if we remove the test and license requirements for driving, then we will be much safer on the road?
It would make no difference. Having worked in law enforcement, thousands upon thousands of people are driving w/o licenses, or with suspended/revoked licenses. Thousand upon thousand that have valid licenses, are crashing into things left and right. There is no way around this. The license doesn't mean one can drive. If driver's licenses were really supposed to make people drive the correct way, there would be yearly testing for everyone. This would include a written test, a skills test, and an eye test. We have hunters with hunting licenses negligently shooting people in a few cases. Too me, licensing is more about government control more than anything. Licenses are government permission slips, and outside of the medical field, I haven't really seen any government licensing that really makes the user anymore safer than if they didn't have a license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter
Wyoming does not test. They fingerprint, they require a class where you will demonstrate profficiancy and they require a complete back ground check. The back ground check is 13 or 14 pages long and is very detailed.
What happens if one doesn't "demonstrate proficiency?" That sounds like a test to me. Is this a live fire test, or show us how you load the bullets type test? The background check is amazing. What can they want that is 13 or 14 pages long? Do they call friends and family? Neighbors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter
If this law passes, then any would be thug can conceal. Any person who is bypolar and heavily medicated, can conceal. Any person who is on meds for depression and has even been institutionalized, can conceal. Any habitual alcoholic can conceal. Any person who has been taken to jail for domestic violence, can conceal. Any drug dealer or drug addict who hasn't yet gotten a felony, can conceal. Any person, who has never fired a gun or practiced, can now conceal. Yep, that will certainly make me feel safer.
Well, maybe Wyoming is different, but these people you listed already carry if they want too. Murder is also against the law, but some of the above do that as well. I'm not necessarily for unlimited, no questions asked carrying, but I do think restrictions should be minimal, and it shouldn't be a money making enterprise for the state. In Indiana, it is definitely a money making enterprise. The only difference between the four year license and the lifetime license is the date they enter into the computer. So why should the lifetime be anymore costly than the four year? Other testing, or whatever one wants to call it, can be questionable as well, so can "may issue" laws, where some LE official gets the final say for the area he/she has jurisdiction over. Oh, and if we need folks to demonstrate proficiency in carrying a weapon, why not require that to buy a weapon? What about the 13-14 page background to buy a weapon? It is odd that one can buy an AK-47 from a private party with no background check, yet in some areas, we won't let the person carry a .357 without a state permission slip.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
