# Best states for Concealed Carry according to GUNS N AMMO



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Best States for Concealed Carry 2015 - Guns & Ammo


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Yes! Arizona is #1


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

desertman said:


> Yes! Arizona is #1


I'm pretty sure that Vermont would be #1 if we had a permitting process for reciprocity purposes. I don't know, but suspect that Rhode Island's out-of-stater permit gets some attention from Vermonters who travel.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> I'm pretty sure that Vermont would be #1 if we had a permitting process for reciprocity purposes. I don't know, but suspect that Rhode Island's out-of-stater permit gets some attention from Vermonters who travel.


I believe, but am not sure but at one time Vermont was about the only state that allowed both methods of carry without a permit? Arizona, before August of 2010 only allowed open carry without a permit. At one time open carry was the only way to carry legally out here. We have since gone constitutional carry, permits being optional for reciprocity purposes with states that require their residents to have a permit and a few other perks. Fortunately both of our states have very specific constitutional guarantees which leave no doubt as to what it's meaning is with regard to individual 2nd Amendment rights. There is no militia clause that can be taken out of context by antigun zealots. I do not understand what is stopping Vermonters from implementing a system such as we have here in Arizona? In Arizona as long as you have legally complied with the laws of your home state regarding the possession of firearms you can carry legally here just as we can. The same is probably true with other states that do not require a permit.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

desertman said:


> I believe, but am not sure but at one time Vermont was about the only state that allowed both methods of carry without a permit? Arizona, before August of 2010 only allowed open carry without a permit. At one time open carry was the only way to carry legally out here. We have since gone constitutional carry, permits being optional for reciprocity purposes with states that require their residents to have a permit and a few other perks. Fortunately both of our states have very specific constitutional guarantees which leave no doubt as to what it's meaning is with regard to individual 2nd Amendment rights. There is no militia clause that can be taken out of context by antigun zealots. I do not understand what is stopping Vermonters from implementing a system such as we have here in Arizona? *In Arizona as long as you have legally complied with the laws of your home state regarding the possession of firearms you can carry legally here just as we can.* The same is probably true with other states that do not require a permit.


Far as I know, that is the story in Vermont. What I was trying to say is that we have no way to get reciprocity with states that do require permits _except_ to get an out-of-state permit somewhere. That is only a partial fix, y'know.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

They fly the Union Jack in Hawaii? Not surprising, and California should change it's flag to Red with a star in the middle.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Well, at least Indiana was in the top 10.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

denner said:


> They fly the Union Jack in Hawaii? Not surprising, and *California should change it's flag to Red with a star in the middle.*


More like a nice big fat swastika in a white circle.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

*"Carrying openly or concealed is allowed in restaurants and bars so long as no alcohol is consumed."*
This statement is two-thirds in error. You can open carry into an ABC ON establishment and consume alcohol, though we don't recommend this. If you sidearm is concealed, you may not consume... unless you're a member of the state's attorney general core. The other third part that is in error is this. There are no bars in Virginia.

Virginia should have been ranked higher than this magazine felt was earned. We have among the most lenient concealed carry laws and open carry is the normal mode of carrying, which requires no permit.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> *"Carrying openly or concealed is allowed in restaurants and bars so long as no alcohol is consumed."*
> This statement is two-thirds in error. You can open carry into an ABC ON establishment and consume alcohol, though we don't recommend this. If you sidearm is concealed, you may not consume... unless you're a member of the state's attorney general core. The other third part that is in error is this. There are no bars in Virginia.
> 
> Virginia should have been ranked higher than this magazine felt was earned. We have among the most lenient concealed carry laws and open carry is the normal mode of carrying, which requires no permit.


In Arizona unless you have a concealed weapons permit you are not allowed to carry either openly or concealed into any establishment that serves alcohol unless there is a dire emergency. Permit or no permit you are not allowed to consume alcohol on those premises while carrying. This does not bother me as the two do not mix. Same goes for operating vehicles. There are many bars in Arizona as there are in most other states. The main purpose of a bar is to serve alcohol. Most people have to drive a vehicle to get to them and use that same vehicle to leave. I do not know of too many people who go to a bar and have "just one". A restaurant? Maybe? More than likely one or two with a meal. Most people, I would venture to say that go to a bar, leave while they are over the legal limit for a DUI. In hindsight, I can not for the life of me understand why bars whose sole purpose is for individuals to get intoxicated are allowed to remain open. I would even go further and not allow any establishment where most individuals have to drive to, serve alcoholic beverages. Is it really necessary to have have an alcoholic beverage with a meal? God forbid you got into an accident that may not even be your fault: "But officer I only had one drink". Regardless if you were under the limit for a DUI, it still wouldn't look too good. And God forbid if there were any personal injury or even death. Consuming alcoholic beverages while out and about in public is never a good idea especially while armed or operating any type of vehicle. This also applies to any intoxicating substance. Shit, I confess I'm guilty of doing this in my late teens and early 20's and am damn lucky that nothing ever happened. Not so for some of my friends who never grew up or knew when to stop. A few of whom died in alcohol/drug related incidents. Others had multiple DUI's, failed marriages, broken homes, lost jobs you name it. It's just not worth it. The $64,000 question is: How do you get thru to these people before it ultimately ruins their lives or the lives of others?


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

(desertman) "I can not for the life of me understand why bars whose sole purpose is for individuals to get intoxicated are allowed to remain open."

You appear to be confusing the DUI limit with 'intoxicated'. The blood alcohol level that makes a person intoxicated varies widely, but is nearly always well above the DUI measurement. The oldtime .15% number was pretty reasonable. the current standard .08% limit is a MADD thing.

Alcohol and guns don't coexist well at all, but that is the inhibition relaxant factor, not the coordination/ratiocination stuff.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> (desertman) "I can not for the life of me understand why bars whose sole purpose is for individuals to get intoxicated are allowed to remain open."
> 
> *You appear to be confusing the DUI limit with 'intoxicated'.* The blood alcohol level that makes a person intoxicated varies widely, but is nearly always well above the DUI measurement. The oldtime .15% number was pretty reasonable. the current standard .08% limit is a MADD thing.
> 
> Alcohol and guns don't coexist well at all, but that is the inhibition relaxant factor, not the coordination/ratiocination stuff.


I understand that. There was an individual out here that hit and killed a girl while she was riding a bicycle. He stayed on the scene as this was not a hit and run. *He was under the legal limit for DUI.*



> **** was indicted by a grand jury on one count of manslaughter and two counts of DUI - one for alcohol, one for drugs - on Sept. 9.
> 
> **** was cooperative at the scene, the report said, and *blew a .007, far below the .08 threshold for drunk driving.* **** went back to the police station willingly, but then decided against giving blood or urine samples, and a warrant had to be obtained to take them.
> 
> ...


My whole point is that it is better to not have a trace of any intoxicants in your system in case of a situation such as this. Or any situation for that matter. Witnesses to the accident have claimed that this individual was not driving erratic or reckless in any way. Many have claimed that it was entirely possible that at the time of the accident the sun could have made it difficult to have seen this young women on a bicycle. Again, he did stay on the scene and was cooperative. Indicating at least to me that he felt he had nothing to hide and was sober at the time. Even though he may have consumed one or two alcoholic beverages and smoked a joint 12 hours earlier. Hell, if you want to have a couple of drinks or smoke a joint, you're better off staying home. If you own guns having traces of THC metabolite or other controlled substances would qualify you as a prohibited possessor under state and federal law. Which could and probably would lead to the confiscation of your personal firearms. Along with charges of lying on federal Form 4473 with regards to the question: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?". Just try to imagine if you had to use your gun and were justified in using it for self defense yet had traces of intoxicants especially controlled substances in your system. Think that they won't check for it? Indeed they will, you can bet on it.

Needless to say two lives have been ruined over this incident not to mention their families especially the family who lost someone. More than likely in addition to criminal charges there will be lawsuits.

Had this individual not had any traces of intoxicants in his body this more than likely would have been nothing more than a terrible accident that due to road conditions at the time couldn't have been avoided.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Hah. How did the pot get into the conversation?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> Hah. How did the pot get into the conversation?





> **** was indicted by a grand jury on one count of manslaughter and two counts of DUI - one for alcohol, one for drugs - on Sept. 9.
> 
> **** was cooperative at the scene, the report said, and *blew a .007, far below the .08 threshold for drunk driving.* **** went back to the police station willingly, but then decided against giving blood or urine samples, and a warrant had to be obtained to take them.
> 
> ...




See above from the news article. What difference does it make? The whole point of my argument is that people should not be using intoxicants while operating vehicles or handling firearms. You don't even have to be intoxicated to get yourself in a whole lot of trouble if trace amounts are found in your system. As the gentleman who hit and killed this young women is finding out. What is so hard to understand about that?


----------



## zb338 (Jan 24, 2014)

I don't know anything about drugs. I do know that Pennsylvania is a good carry State just so long
as you don't carry in the big cities like Philly. 

Zeke


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

I used to have a Indiana CCW permit. Now I have an AZ one.


berettatoter said:


> Well, at least Indiana was in the top 10.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

zb338 said:


> I don't know anything about drugs. I do know that Pennsylvania is a good carry State just so long
> as you don't carry in the big cities like Philly.
> 
> Zeke


So are you saying that if you have a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit, or one recognized from another state, that you cannot carry in Philadelphia? I have heard of some problems with Philly police with open carriers but concealed??


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

desertman said:


> [/B]
> 
> See above from the news article. What difference does it make? The whole point of my argument is that people should not be using intoxicants while operating vehicles or handling firearms. You don't even have to be intoxicated to get yourself in a whole lot of trouble if trace amounts are found in your system. As the gentleman who hit and killed this young women is finding out. What is so hard to understand about that?


Oops, sorry. I consider pot to be a mind altering drug, not 'intoxicant', which is hopelessly general.. Hell, coal dust laden air and carbon monoxide are intoxicants, i.e. are toxic. DUI is short for Driving Under the Influence, and back in the day it was the influence of alcohol. The drug thing has gotten tacked on. Hard for an old geezer to keep up with all these tacking ons.

A "trace of THC metabolite" without a specific "intoxicated" number is another example of MADDlike bs, y'know. Hell, even worse.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> Oops, sorry. I consider pot to be a mind altering drug, not 'intoxicant', which is hopelessly general.. Hell, coal dust laden air and carbon monoxide are intoxicants, i.e. are toxic. DUI is short for Driving Under the Influence, and back in the day it was the influence of alcohol. The drug thing has gotten tacked on. Hard for an old geezer to keep up with all these tacking ons.
> 
> A "trace of THC metabolite" without a specific "intoxicated" number is another example of MADDlike bs, y'know. Hell, even worse.


Sorry, no offense intended but I guess you've missed the entire point of my posts regarding that subject. It's gone right past you. What more can I say? I don't understand why all the animosity towards MADD? I certainly do not want to be around individuals that are under the influence of alcohol or mind altering drugs either while out on the highway or handling firearms. Do you?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> So are you saying that if you have a Pennsylvania concealed carry permit, or one recognized from another state, that you cannot carry in Philadelphia? I have heard of some problems with Philly police with open carriers but concealed??


Some states have no preemption clause, which allows different jurisdictions within that state to enact their own firearms laws that are more restrictive than state law. You can be legal in one town, a criminal in the next. Pretty screwed up, huh? New York State is a prime example. Some jurisdictions issue unrestricted carry licenses which are good throughout the state except NYC. Others issue restricted carry for specific purposes such as target shooting, hunting, business or premises. With a restricted permit an individual may only carry or possess a handgun for the purpose of which the license was issued. To and from a shooting range, out in the field while hunting or to and from ones place of business, things like that. Or to be kept on one's premises only which is really absurd, unless you have a shooting range, how can you become proficient? Unrestricted, anytime and anywhere for any lawful purpose except NYC and of course designated gun free zones. It's left up to the licensing officer's discretion as to who gets what type of license. Licensing officer's are usually county judges in that state. New York is also a "may issue" state.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

desertman said:


> Sorry, no offense intended but I guess you've missed the entire point of my posts regarding that subject. It's gone right past you. What more can I say? I don't understand why all the animosity towards MADD? I certainly do not want to be around individuals that are under the influence of alcohol or mind altering drugs either while out on the highway or handling firearms. Do you?


Not the problem with our conversation. I am saying that the MADD-driven .08% is too damn low, and that THC 'trace' is not any kind of measure - or even an indication - of imparedness. Also, handling guns and driving a car are two different things, that I don't lump together. Nuff said, I think.

:smt033


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> Not the problem with our conversation. * I am saying that the MADD-driven .08% is too damn low, and that THC 'trace' is not any kind of measure - or even an indication - of imparedness.* Also, handling guns and driving a car are two different things, that I don't lump together. Nuff said, I think.
> 
> :smt033


Surprise! I do agree with you on that. *However the example that I provided where a young man killed a women riding a bicycle was well under the legal limit yet was charged anyway.* Obviously he would have been much better off had he not had traces of anything in his body at the time of the accident. It would have been handled as just that, an accident. THC metabolites can remain in the body for days after a joint was smoked. What this proves is that you do not have to be impaired to find yourself in a world of trouble. Just the fact that he had consumed an alcoholic beverage and smoked a joint 12 hours earlier was enough. I only hope that you can understand this. Whether it's right, wrong, too damn low or fair is irrelevant. He was indeed charged with one count of manslaughter and two counts of DUI. I rest my case.



> **** was indicted by a grand jury on one count of manslaughter and two counts of DUI - one for alcohol, one for drugs - on Sept. 9.
> 
> **** was cooperative at the scene, the report said, and blew a .007, far below the .08 threshold for drunk driving. **** went back to the police station willingly, but then decided against giving blood or urine samples, and a warrant had to be obtained to take them.
> 
> ...


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> Some states have no preemption clause, which allows different jurisdictions within that state to enact their own firearms laws that are more restrictive than state law. You can be legal in one town, a criminal in the next. Pretty screwed up, huh? New York State is a prime example. Some jurisdictions issue unrestricted carry licenses which are good throughout the state except NYC. Others issue restricted carry for specific purposes such as target shooting, hunting, business or premises. With a restricted permit an individual may only carry or possess a handgun for the purpose of which the license was issued. To and from a shooting range, out in the field while hunting or to and from ones place of business, things like that. Or to be kept on one's premises only which is really absurd, unless you have a shooting range, how can you become proficient? Unrestricted, anytime and anywhere for any lawful purpose except NYC and of course designated gun free zones. It's left up to the licensing officer's discretion as to who gets what type of license. Licensing officer's are usually county judges in that state. New York is also a "may issue" state.


....which, btw, just happens to have a majority of judges who are anti gun, except some are pro hunting but not pro carry for any other reason. I was surprised to learn recently from a relative that you can still get a handgun permit fairly easily in NY, just can't legally use the gun for anything much other than on your property. If you have it in a vehicle, I guess you have to have it unloaded and locked in a separate compartment in the trunk of your vehicle, which makes it very easy to use if you are ever being robbed or assaulted or anything like that. You simply have to ask the attacker to wait while you retrieve your sidearm from the trunk......


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369 said:


> ....which, btw, just happens to have a majority of judges who are anti gun, except some are pro hunting but not pro carry for any other reason. I was surprised to learn recently from a relative that you can still get a handgun permit fairly easily in NY, just can't legally use the gun for anything much other than on your property. If you have it in a vehicle, I guess you have to have it unloaded and locked in a separate compartment in the trunk of your vehicle, which makes it very easy to use if you are ever being robbed or assaulted or anything like that. You simply have to ask the attacker to wait while you retrieve your sidearm from the trunk......


From what I understand is that a permittee with a restricted license can carry loaded and concealed but only for the reasons for which the permit was issued. In other words to and from a shooting range, while engaged in hunting or sanctioned shooting activities etc. The burden of proof is of course on the permit holder. Getting caught carrying for any other reason would result in the revocation of the license and confiscation of the handgun(s). About the only saving grace is that criminal charges for the illegal possession of a weapon would not be filed. I'm only going by what people from New York have told me and what I have learned because of my own curiosity of oppressive gun laws of different states. What really is stupid, is that if an individual is lucky enough to live in a county where the licensing officer (county judge) issues unrestricted licenses. That individual can carry anywhere for any lawful purpose throughout New York State except NYC this includes counties where only restricted permits are issued. Individuals with restricted carry licenses must abide by all of the restrictions on the license including counties where unrestricted licenses are issued. I'm only guessing but I wonder what would happen if someone with a restricted license used their handgun for self defense? Since that is not a legitimate reason according to the restrictions set forth for the issuance of such a license.

What a screwed up state! It's all about political retribution. "Ill Duce" and his criminal cohorts in the legislature despise anything and anyone who has anything to do with firearms and Conservative politics. What better way to punish your political enemies? Than to find ways to criminalize their otherwise lawful activities and entrapping them with complicated laws and restrictions. That petty little tyrant of a governor had the balls to say that after passing the "Safe Act" he was respecting the rights of legitimate gun owners. How? By turning them into criminals with the stroke of a pen? Unbelievable!


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

desertman said:


> (snip)
> 
> In Arizona as long as you have legally complied with the laws of your home state regarding the possession of firearms you can carry legally here just as we can. The same is probably true with other states that do not require a permit.


Not completely accurate, as I understand the situation with North Dakota permit holders.

North Dakota currently has two "classes" of concealed carry permits, Class 1 and Class 2. We formerly had just one class/type of permit, and in those days, AZ honored ND permits, with certain restrictions (more on this, below).

When ND went to a two-class system, they were trying to get reciprocity from more states, so they added additional training requirements for the new Class 1 permits, tailored to getting certain other states to honor our permits. The Class 2 permits basically mirrored the old single permit, but there used to be an asterisk next to the AZ on the old reciprocity list, which was a restriction stating that AZ would only allow persons 21 and over to carry in AZ (ND would issue old permits to 18-20 year-olds, and that continues with the newer Class 2 permits). So the youngsters were out of luck, but everyone else could carry in AZ.

When we split the permits into a two-class permit system a few years later, AZ blindsided us by suddenly dropping ALL Class 2 permits from reciprocity with AZ. No matter how old you were, if you held a ND Class 2 permit, you could no longer use it to carry in AZ, and according to the ND reciprocity webpage, that continues to this day:

Reciprocity with Other States

So although these folks are completely legal to possess and carry concealed in their home state, they cannot carry concealed in AZ on their Class 2 permit. I'm not sure if they could open carry in AZ or not.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

DJ Niner said:


> Not completely accurate, as I understand the situation with North Dakota permit holders.
> 
> North Dakota currently has two "classes" of concealed carry permits, Class 1 and Class 2. We formerly had just one class/type of permit, and in those days, AZ honored ND permits, with certain restrictions (more on this, below).
> 
> ...


That's a good question. I would think so but I'm not sure. It would be best to contact Arizona's Department of Public Safety. This just goes to show how screwed up and complicated gun laws can be. Especially reciprocity between states. Different state's have different standards. Unfortunately laws are changing all the time. For instance Nevada has just changed it's laws regarding reciprocity with other states. I believe they are also enacting preemption laws? If so people will be able to carry in Clark County. I've heard but do not know if it's true or not that different sections of Las Vegas have their own gun laws? It should be that once an individual has a concealed weapons permit it should be good throughout the country just as with a drivers license. Just wishful thinking.



> Answer: First, let me clarify Arizona and Federal laws on this subject. In Arizona, it is perfectly legal for a person 18 years of age or old to own a handgun.
> However, Arizona will not allow anyone under the age of 21 to carry a concealed handgun. You must be 21 years old before Arizona will issue you a concealed weapons permit.
> Federal law also requires that you be 21 years old to purchase a handgun from a Federally licensed gun dealer.
> 
> As an 18 year old, you can carry your handgun openly, as long as you are in a place where it is legal for you to carry a firearm. I would recommend that you consult the Arizona DPS Concealed Weapons Permit page for information places where concealed or open carry is not permitted. Another resource is the "Arizona Gun Owners Guide" by Alan Korwin. --- azccwpermit.com


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

In my youth, and a few times in my younger adult days, I drove while intoxicated. But I looked for every avenue of back roads and places where I was least likely to encounter other vehicles. Like I said, this was many years ago. And I do admit that I drove while under the influence in rather dangerous conditions.... think street racing.

Never hurt anyone and never caused any property damage. But it was a stupid move on my part even though nothing bad happened. Those days are long gone and thank God for that. The last thing I want to do is to put some innocent person's life or property in danger because of my stupidity. With Washington, DC so close when I was a teenager and the drinking age only 18 in that city, we all lived for the weekends and trips to the DC bars. I knew a few kids who were killed in car accidents and that certainly had an impression. However, when you're young you soon get past that and do the same as you have done in the past.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> In my youth, and a few times in my younger adult days, I drove while intoxicated. But I looked for every avenue of back roads and places where I was least likely to encounter other vehicles. Like I said, this was many years ago. And I do admit that I drove while under the influence in rather dangerous conditions.... think street racing.
> 
> Never hurt anyone and never caused any property damage. But it was a stupid move on my part even though nothing bad happened. Those days are long gone and thank God for that. The last thing I want to do is to put some innocent person's life or property in danger because of my stupidity. With Washington, DC so close when I was a teenager and the drinking age only 18 in that city, we all lived for the weekends and trips to the DC bars. I knew a few kids who were killed in car accidents and that certainly had an impression. However, when you're young you soon get past that and do the same as you have done in the past.


In my youth in Vermont, Hampton Manor, across the New York line, was the fateful attraction that drew 18-20 y.o. Vermonters to their ruin. During those years I was in the Air Force, so missed it.


----------



## zb338 (Jan 24, 2014)

My mistake SouthernBoy. It is legal to carry in Philly if you have a carry permit. They get upset if you open
carry which is legal but they throw you in jail anyhow. Then they let you out whenever they feel like it.

Zeke


----------

