this came up on my facebook today

[B.A.]

kinda interesting maybe you guys can add to it

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/

[libra8]

Obviously people in the south east are armed. And/or there is more criminal activity there.

[indianjack]

Obviously people in the south east are armed. And/or there is more criminal activity there.

Well Fla led the way with concealed carry as well as Castle Doctrine laws.

[B.A.]

Well Fla led the way with concealed carry as well as Castle Doctrine laws.

yeah but i still don't think they can oc

[NRA Recruiter]

Well Fla led the way with concealed carry . . ..

Not really. I'd say that Vermont did that. Indiana recongnized permits from any state at least 40 years ago.

[daschnoz]

I just submitted the Reading bike trail incident from a few weeks ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/26...m-off-bicycle/

[snakeman21]

Not really. I'd say that Vermont did that. Indiana recongnized permits from any state at least 40 years ago.

Yup, since 1903. In that year, the Vermont Supreme Court made their famous "Vermont Carry" ruling. It wasn't referred to as "Vermont carry" then, that was a term coined to describe the concept later.

This ruling guaranteed that no municipality could ban the carry of firearms, openly or concealed, with or without a license. It was brought to light in STATE vs ROSENTHAL because a citizen living in Rutland was convicted of violating a Rutland city ordinance which prohibited the carry of firearms in the city. The VT Supreme Court ruled that:

"A city ordinance prohibiting a person from carrying within the city any brass knuckles, pistol, slung shot, or weapon of similar character, or any weapon concealed on his person, without permission of the mayor or chief of police, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol under any circumstances without such consent, is repugnant to the Constitution, and to that extent void."

Since then, Rutland again enacted an ordinance prohibiting the carry of firearms, but it was once again removed because it was in violation of the VTSC's 1903 ruling.

We had some decent people in the VTSC in 1903, apparently.


Edit: To clarify, that line "repugnant to the Constitution" is referring to Vermont's Constitution, which provides:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State—and as standing armies in 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." VT. CONST. Ch. I, art. 16.

So the VTSC rightfully decided that an ordinance prohibiting the carry of weapons was in blatant violation of the Vermont constitution (as well as the U.S. Constitution, but that is a whole different discussion).

So, for most of our history, we have been allowed to carry any gun we own. If freedom like that is such a bad thing, it's no wonder our crime rate is so high... Oh wait... Nevermind.

[libra8]

yeah but i still don't think they can oc

You may only OC while fishing/camping/hunting or on the way to fish/camp/hunt.

[B.A.]

You may only OC while fishing/camping/hunting or on the way to fish/camp/hunt.

thats really dumb. why not just allow oc? i'd say i was always going camping lol