Permitless Carry . . Illinois . . . Connecticut Information

[Gary Slider]

In late August of this year I had the opportunity to be an assistant at a Mas Ayoob MAG 40 Class. During a lecture Mas stated, “This may upset some people here but we should not call it Constitutional Carry.” That got my attention as I had it listed at that time as Constitutional Carry on www.handgunlaw.us Mas stated it would just open a can of worms in a court battle if you used the term Constitutional Carry and not permitless carry or like he stated in the article “The Vermont Model.” Mas has been in the courtroom and knows how the system works and words do have meanings. Yes lots of people use the term Constitutional Carry but just because a lot of people use it doesn’t mean it will not cause you problems if involved in a self defense shooting.

At the next break I told him I had Constitutional Carry on the site and he stated he knew that and that remark was pointed at me about upsetting anyone. Well it didn’t upset me I just wanted the best information possible on the site. So within 48 hours I removed Constitutional Carry from the site and replaced it with Permitless Carry. I received a few emails asking me why I did that. So I ask Mas if he would do a Blog Post on that issue and he has. You can read it Here:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...utional-carry/

When you look at Vermont they don’t state Constitutional Carry. Their law is silent on carrying concealed firearms so that is what makes it legal in Vermont. Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming don’t state that they have Constitutional Carry but Permitless Carry. Even Oklahoma that will accept a state issued ID from those Permitless Carry States as a valid permit/licenses to carry in Oklahoma call it Permitless Carry. We should call it what the states call it. Mas was right in stating for Vermont we could call it “The Vermont Model.” By the way Permitless Carry in Wyoming is for Wyoming Residents Only anyone else carrying in Wyoming needs a valid permit/license that Wyoming honors. Some are stating Arkansas is Permitless Carry and Open Carry is legal with their recent law change. The state is stating permitless carry and open carry are not allowed under the new law. I believe it will take a court case/s to finally settle things in Arkansas.

ILLINOIS: The Administrative Rules for how the IL State Police will administer the IL Carry Permits are in the process of being written. Until they are completed we will not have the exact procedures for application. They are wanting fingerprints to be supplied electronically but the law states if fingerprints are not part of the application they must accept it but they have 30 additional days to issue the Permit. The Illinois State Police are stating now that you can start applying on or about January 10, 2014.

Illinois has also come up with a standardized “No Gun Sign” for places that post their property. You can view the Info and see an image of the sign here: http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/ccw-index.cfm In my opinion the sign is too small. If you are interested in keeping up with what the IL State Police are putting out about their new carry law this link is the link to bookmark.

CONNECTICUT. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is reporting that the way the law is worded that you can carry a declared Higher Capacity magazine in your firearm but it can only be loaded with 10 rounds. Connecticut’s law requiring a magazine be “within” the firearm “limits the number of declared ‘large capacity magazines’ one is able to carry, along with the number of bullets it can contain. So it looks like if you carry spare magazines they have to be 10 round or less type magazines or you are in violation of the law. You can’t under the law carry a higher capacity magazine only loaded with 10 rounds unless it is “Within” the firearm. Will this matter to authorities? No one is sure but that is the way the law is worded. The Law states: (7) Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to the effective date of this section, (B) does not extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than ten bullets. http://ccdl.us/blog/2013/10/10/what-...or-malloy-say/

www.handgunlaw.us will be updated later this week with the Illinois and Connecticut info listed above.

[Jim March]

When you look at Vermont they don’t state Constitutional Carry. Their law is silent on carrying concealed firearms so that is what makes it legal in Vermont.

OH NO. That is not quite what happened. Vermont got "Constitutional Carry" out of a 1903 VT Supreme Court decision - on constitutional grounds. The laws on carrying that were affected by that decision were then revoked.

So it is absolutely 100% correct to call what Vermont has "Constitutional Carry".

[Gary Slider]

Jim, That is what Mas stated. The courts rule on the Constitution and if laws are in violation of it and other state laws which the VT Court did in State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903). We the people don't. If we state we are carrying under Constitutional Carry we are saying we are ruling on what is Constitutional or not. The Courts are set up to do that not us. That decision stated that the city ordinance against carrying was: "inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state."

The ruling can be read Here: http://www.guncite.com/court/state/55a610.html

[Tom Servo]

Al Norris made a similar point a few months back on the issue of calling it "Constitutional Carry." We've had restrictions on how arms are carried since the founding. Many states have wording in their constitutions acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms, but with qualifying language when it comes to carry.

Those restrictions have been found to be lawful much more often than not. Barring a ruling from the Supreme Court removing all such encumbrances, "Constitutional Carry" is something of a misnomer.

[Al Norris]

As Tom has stated, I have long been against the term, "Constitutional Carry," for the very reasons that have been stated above. Some months ago, I became "fed-up" with the phrase and ranted about it in the open forums.

The Constitution is absolutely silent on the manner of carry. It (the Constitution) merely says that we have a right to bear arms. That is why the term "Constitutional Carry" is at best, a misnomer. At worst, it implies that there is wording within the Constitution that simply does not exist.

The Constitution does not say in what manner we have the right to carry. That is a matter for the various governments (Federal, State and/or local) to determine via regulation.

This is exactly what all the current "carry" cases are about. Some manner of carry must be available, even if through a regulatory process. States that prohibit openly carrying must provide for concealed carry. If concealed carry is not the right, then open carry must be. Either way, the government may regulate how carry is to be achieved, but it cannot deny the fundamental right to carry for self-defense (shall issue as opposed to may issue).

Permitless carry is lawful if the State (or local) or Federal regulations are either silent (no prohibition) or permitted by statute. Permitless carry can include concealed carry, but it doesn't have to.

[Salmoneye]

OH NO. That is not quite what happened. Vermont got "Constitutional Carry" out of a 1903 VT Supreme Court decision - on constitutional grounds. The laws on carrying that were affected by that decision were then revoked.

So it is absolutely 100% correct to call what Vermont has "Constitutional Carry".

Um...

Sorta...

State v. Rosenthal reversed a conviction of a man for breaking a municipal ordinance that was contrary to to the Vermont STATE constitution...

Nothing to do with the BOR of the US Constitution...

The original Vermont State Constitution predates the US constitution, (as we were an independent republic before joining the union), and therefore predates the US BOR by more than a decade...

The currently adopted VT Constitution is from 1793, but the wording of the current article 16 (originally artical 15) is the same as the 1777 VT Constitution...

1777:

XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1793:

Article 16th.

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[Jim March]

When I said that the 1903 ruling was on constitutional grounds, how does that exclude the state constitution?

[Salmoneye]

When people bandy about the term 'Constitutional Carry' it is assumed they are referring to COTUS and 2A, and not the constitutions of the individual states...

You also did not specifically mention that it was the State Constitution that was the basis for the decision, and not the COTUS...Hence my 'assumption' that you were saying that State v. Rosenthal was a 2A decision when it was not...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

This is exactly what all the current "carry" cases are about. Some manner of carry must be available, even if through a regulatory process. States that prohibit openly carrying must provide for concealed carry. If concealed carry is not the right, then open carry must be. Either way, the government may regulate how carry is to be achieved, but it cannot deny the fundamental right to carry for self-defense (shall issue as opposed to may issue).

Permitless carry is lawful if the State (or local) or Federal regulations are either silent (no prohibition) or permitted by statute. Permitless carry can include concealed carry, but it doesn't have to.

To expand slightly on what Al wrote:

Regulation is (by definition) infringement. While I agree that the Constitution requires that some mode of carry be allowed but that the states may decide WHAT mode is allowed ... where I stop is if the only mode allowed (or all modes, where applicable) is available only with a license or permit. Since Gary's opening post includes Connecticut, that's a perfect example of how it ought NOT to be done. Like the 2A, the Connecticut state constitution espouses a right to keep and bear arms. Yet, under Connecticut law, NO mode of carry is allowed without a permit. Once you have the permit, both concealed and open carry become legal.

IMHO, that's not really what the law (the Constitution, and the [state] constitution) says.

Reference: Connecticut Constitution:

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Not even a pesky militia clause in there to argue about, yet the state's laws are contrary to the state's constitution and nobody can get it fixed.

[JimDandy]

I would debate that point with you if the method of permit approval was Shall Issue. Connecticut is obviously not Shall Issue. And my state allows permitless open carry, so my state doesn't work either.

But in a state where carry is subject to a Shall Issue Permit, assuming the details of shall issue are minimal, they aren't and cannot prevent the carry.

[Gary Slider]

Constitutional Carry is the words people have used to describe places where a permit/license to carry a firearm is not required by the state. Mas is only saying that if you were involved in a shooting and took the stand and stated I was carrying under "Constitutional Carry" that it would open up a can of worms and the Prosecutor could ask you questions about that. Questions that the JURY could take in different ways.

Just like the debate on carrying Handloads. Many will say it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter but it opens a can of worms if you are involved in a defensive shooting. Years back a Prosecuting Attorney of the County I held NRA Classes in did the law part. He was a shooter and a reloader. Very Pro Gun. He told the class if you used handloads it just opened up a line of questioning that you really didn't want to get into. First he explained that he would do everything he could to get people on the Jury who knew very little or nothing about firearms. Just what they have seen on TV. Then he would study your rounds you carried. Finding out what bullet, and powder you used. He used the example that you used 5.0 grains of X powder. The load for that cartridge was 4.6 to 5.4 min to max. Then he stated he would ask why you used 5.0 and not 4.6. You could explain that but remember the Jury most likely knows very little or nothing about firearms and ammunition. Then he used the phrase that he would want the Jury to hear. Did you use 5.0 and not 4.6 grains of powder so you could kill them deader? It really didn't matter but the Jury who again in most instances knows very little about firearms heard that. That is the prosecutors job to sway the jury to find you guilty. Words have meaning and what the jury hears will sway them one way or the other. There are other reasons not to carry hand loads but I won't get into them here.

A good shooting is a good shooting and it shouldn't matter what cartridge you use but THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. That is what Mas is saying about Constitutional Carry. It just opens up the prosecution a line of questions that most people who don't know much about firearms will hear and it will only let the jury hear things they didn't need to hear which could hurt your case. So why use it if it can be used to hurt you?

Mas has been there and done that in many trials. He has seen what the Prosecution can do and how words have meaning and how words can get twisted. Most of us have not seen that.

That is why when I took LFI-I in 1995 (Now called MAG-40) and LFI-II in 1998 (Now called MAG-80) We typed up our class notes and mailed them Certified and Registered Mail to ourselves. They were stamped dated by the USPS and we didn't open them. Mine is in my Safety Deposit Box. If I am involved in a shooting and the prosecution brings up my training those notes will come out and be opened in court. Then we can put the Jury who most likely knows little about firearms through a mini LFI class right there in the Court room. We can educate the Jury and that can only help us. We do things now to help us if in the future if we have to use our firearm to defend our lives. Same with using Constitutional Carry. Nothing really wrong with that wording but if we use it we can give the prosecution ammo to shoot back at us. It all boils down to, do we don't want to give more ammunition to those who are trying to hurt us?

Mas is not telling you that "You can't use that phrase." He is telling you that it can cause you problems down the road so why use it. You will have enough problems if you are on trial for a defensive shooting.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

I would debate that point with you if the method of permit approval was Shall Issue. Connecticut is obviously not Shall Issue. And my state allows permitless open carry, so my state doesn't work either.

Connecticut is considered by most sources to be "shall issue."

The point is that the license is required for either open OR concealed carry, which is the equivalent of imposing a tax (fee) on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. This is unlike Pennsylvania, where (except in Philadelphia) open carry is legal without a license, but the license is required for concealed carry. In Pennsylvania, a mode of carry is available to those who do not have (or cannot affored) a license. In Connecticut, despite the clear language of the state's own constitution, there is NO mode of carry available unless you pay the money to get (and maintain) the license.