Check Out This Map!

[jrhead75]

Well there ya go...

I stand corrected.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Wife and I were trying to study the progression of things and couldn't get our eyes focused fast enough.
Is there a way to stop this map from updating so we can study it?

Here are the first 11 years, one by one.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Here are the rest of the years, plus slower animations:

 

[jdege]

I'd like to maintain control of these maps, to minimize out-of-date copies when I update them or make corrections.

I've had people ask for the individual maps before - I'll edit the page, so that the individual maps are recoverable.

 

[BluesBear]

jdege

As for the map, I've had some quibbles about the status of some states before they adopted shall-issue. Was Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc., may-issue or no-issue in 1986?

Kentucky was an No Issue in 1986. Actually the law back then could be construed as to disallow concealed carry in your own home or business.
The only exceptions to Carrying Concealed a Deadly Weapon were Peace Officers and Mail Carriers while actually delivering the mail.

Open cary was technically legal, but in many areas you'd get busted for Disorderly Conduct. DisCon in Kentucky was any action, in public, that could cause "affront and alarm".

An interesting sidenote to KY CCDW was that "a firearm is not deemed concealed on or about the person under this statue if said firearm is in the glove compartment of a motor vechicle provided that such compartment was installed by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture, whether said compartment is locked, unlocked or has a locking mechanism."
And guns in gunracks in the window of a vehicle were OK as well.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Could be, I got here in 76, and when I first applied in 78, I had to go interview with the sheriff, and tell him why I wanted one. Either I misinterpreted, or the sheriff was jerking me around, because he gave me a pretty good third degree.

The law was a bit different back in 1978. However, the law was shall-issue. I do not believe the law allowed the form of interview, but I bet if a sheriff were to try to do that, we'd here about it here today, someone would report it, and lawsuits would get filed.

The CPL law was amended a few times back in the 1980's do to some unjust and unfair rulings by the courts. I'd actually have to go to Vancouver, WA and do some legal research.

 

[45King]

My memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember that Georgia went to "shall issue" in 1976.
Shall issue legislation was introduced in SC in '94, but I can't remember if it passed then or the next year.

 

[jdege]

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Cramer/shall-issue.html#c9

Georgia's concealed weapon permit law before 1989 was somewhat ambiguous. While one part of the concealed weapon statute states, "The judge of the probate court of each county may...issue a license..." [48] [emphasis added], a later portion specifies:

"Not later than 60 days after the date of the application the judge of the probate court shall issue the applicant a license to carry any pistol or revolver if no facts establishing ineligibility have been reported and if the judge determines the applicant has met all the qualifications, is of good moral character, and has complied with all the requirements contained herein. [49] [emphasis added] "

Other portions of the statute specify that licenses shall not be issued to anyone under 21, [50] a fugitive from justice, or anyone awaiting court proceedings for a felony or "forcible misdemeanor." [51] Also disqualified is anyone placed under supervision by a court within the last ten years for a "forcible felony," or the last five years for a "forcible misdemeanor or a nonforcible felony," [52] or hospitalized for alcohol or drug treatment in the last five years. [53] Anyone convicted of any sort of manufacturing, distribution, or possession of a controlled substance is likewise ineligible. [54] The maximum fee for processing was set at $30. [55]

But was the issuance of a permit discretionary or not? The use of "may" in one place suggested that it was discretionary. Yet the language "shall issue" seems non-discretionary. The Georgia Attorney General resolved the question in 1989, when he issued an opinion holding that the judge, "has no discretion to exercise, but must issue permit unless provided with information indicating disqualification of applicant." [56]

 

[Mike Irwin]

I e-mailed them about Pennsylvania, and they said that they've inserted a footnote to the map indicating that it was a may-issue state prior to being shall issue in the 1980s.

 

[jdege]

Validate my data:

If anyone would care to validate my data...

First field is the state abbreviation. Following are year of change and what it was changed to:

U = unrestricted
S = shall-issue
M = may-issue
N = no-issue

I'd really love to be able to track this back to 1900 or earlier, and show the adoption of the may-issue laws, back in the 1920's and 1930's, but I have data for only a handful of states.


AK 2003:U 1994:S 0000:N
AL 0000:S
AR 1995:S 0000:N
AZ 1994:S 0000:N
CA 0000:M
CO 2003:S 0000:M
CT 0000:S
DE 0000:M
FL 1987:S 0000:M
GA 1989:S 1975:M 0000:N
HI 0000:M
IA 0000:M
ID 1990:S 0000:N
IL 0000:N
IN 0000:S
KS 0000:N
KY 1996:S 0000:N
LA 1996:S 0000:M
MA 0000:M
MD 0000:M
ME 0000:S
MI 2001:S 0000:M
MN 2003:S 1975:M 0000:U
MO 2003:S 0000:N
MS 1990:S 0000:N
MT 1991:S 0000:M
NC 1995:S 0000:N
ND 0000:S
NE 0000:N
NH 0000:S
NJ 0000:M
NM 2003:S 0000:N
NV 1995:S 0000:M
NY 0000:M
OH 0000:N
OK 1995:S 0000:N
OR 1989:S 0000:N
PA 1989:S 0000:N
RI 0000:M
SC 1996:S 0000:M
SD 0000:S
TN 1994:S 0000:N
TX 1995:S 0000:N
UT 1995:S 0000:M
VA 1995:S 0000:M
VT 0000:U
WA 1961:S 0000:M
WI 0000:N
WV 1989:S 0000:N
WY 1994:S 0000:M