Qo'shma Shtatlarda yashirin tashish - Concealed carry in the United States

Qurolning huquqiy mavzusi
Qo'shma Shtatlar
II o'zgartirish Hujum quroli Hujum qurollari to'g'risidagi qonunchilik Qimmatli qog'ozlar Spirtli ichimliklar byurosi, tamaki, Qurol va portlovchi moddalar (ATF) Brady to'pponchasida zo'ravonlikning oldini olish to'g'risidagi qonun Kampus AQShda olib boriladi AQShda yashirin tashish Konnektikutdagi bolalar xavfsizligi to'g'risidagi qonun Konstitutsiyaviy tashish Oiladagi zo'ravonlik uchun jinoyatchi qurolni taqiqlash Federal hujumga qarshi qurollarni taqiqlash Federal qurol-yarog 'to'g'risidagi qonun 1938 y Federal qurolga litsenziya Qurol to'g'risidagi sud amaliyoti Qurol egalarini himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun 1968 yil qurolni boshqarish to'g'risidagi qonun Qurolsiz maktab zonalari to'g'risidagi qonun (GFSZA) AQShda qurol to'g'risidagi qonun AQShda qurol to'g'risidagi qonunlar shtatlar tomonidan AQShda qurol siyosati Katta hajmli jurnallarni taqiqlash AQShda yashirin tashish tarixi Qurol nazorati bo'yicha xalqaro shartnomalar Milliy tezkor jinoyat Fonni tekshirish tizimi (NICS) Milliy qurolga oid qonun (NFA) NY xavfsizligi to'g'risidagi qonun AQShda ochiq tashish AQShda qurol saqlash va olib yurish huquqi. Ikkinchi o'zgartirishlar qo'riqxonasi Sallivan qonuni (Nyu-York) Supressor Tiahrt o'zgartirish Zo'ravonlik bilan jinoyatchilikka qarshi kurash va huquqni muhofaza qilish to'g'risidagi qonun
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari portali

Yashirin tashish, yoki yashirin qurol olib yurish (CCW), qurol olib yurish amaliyoti (masalan qurol ) ichida jamoat kimgadir yoki yaqin atrofda yashirin tarzda. Hamma qurollar ostida emas CCW qonunlari o'limga olib keladi. Masalan, Florida shtatida qalampir purkagich Belgilangan hajmdan (2 oz.) ko'proq kimyoviy moddada CCW ruxsatnomasi talab qilinadi, har kim qonuniy ravishda CCW ruxsatisiz o'z shaxsiga yashiringan kichikroq "o'zini o'zi himoya qiluvchi kimyoviy purkagich" moslamasini olib yurishi mumkin.^[1][2] 2019 yildan boshlab^[yangilash] Qo'shma Shtatlarda 18,66 million yashirin qurolga ruxsat berilgan.^[3]

Bu yerda yo'q federal qonuniy qonun yashirin olib yurish uchun ruxsatnomalar berish to'g'risida. Hammasi 50 davlatlar malakali shaxslarga ma'lum bir yashirin qurollarni jamoat joylarida ruxsatisiz yoki davlat va / yoki mahalliy darajadagi belgilangan hukumat organidan ruxsat olgandan keyin olib yurishlariga ruxsat beruvchi qonunlar qabul qilgan; ammo, hanuzgacha ko'plab davlatlar bor, garchi ular yashirin ravishda olib o'tishga ruxsat berish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni qabul qilishgan bo'lsa ham, ruxsat bermaydilar yoki uni olishni juda qiyinlashtirmoqdalar.

Tarix

Yashirin transport qonunlari tarixi

Yashirin qurol taqiqlari 1813 yilda Kentukki va Luiziana shtatlarida qabul qilingan. (O'sha kunlarda o'zlarini himoya qilish uchun qurol-yarog'larni ochiq olib yurish maqbul deb topilgan; yashirin olib yurish jinoyatchilarning amaliyoti deb e'lon qilingan.) 1859 yilga kelib, Indiana, Tennessi, Virjiniya, Alabama, va Ogayo ham unga ergashdi.^[4] O'n to'qqizinchi asrning oxiriga kelib Texas, Florida va Oklaxoma singari joylarda ham shunga o'xshash qonunlar qabul qilindi, bu ularning shtat konstitutsiyalarida qurolga oid ba'zi huquqlarni himoya qildi.^[5] 1900-yillarning o'rtalariga qadar AQShning aksariyat shtatlari qurollarni to'liq taqiqlash o'rniga yashirin tashish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni qabul qilishgan.^[6] 1990-yillarning oxiriga qadar ko'pchilik Janubiy shtatlar yoki "No-Issue" yoki "May-Issue-ni cheklash" edi. O'shandan beri ushbu davlatlar asosan "Shall-Issue" litsenziyalash to'g'risidagi qonunlarni qabul qilishdi, ko'plab davlatlar qonuniylashtirmoqdalar. "Cheklovsiz yashirin tashish ".

Shtat qonunlari

Tuman tomonidan yashirin olib o'tishga ruxsatnoma berish (2020 yil):

  Konstitutsiyaviy tashish

  Muammo

  May oyi soni (Amaldagi son)

  May-son

  May-son (Amalda nashr qilinmaydi)

Normativ-huquqiy hujjatlar shtat tomonidan juda farq qiladi, aksariyat shtatlar hozirda "Shall-Issue "siyosat. 90-yillarning o'rtalariga kelib, aksariyat davlatlar shunday bo'lgan muammosiz yoki chiqarilishi mumkin, ammo so'nggi 30 yil ichida davlatlar doimiy ravishda kam cheklangan alternativalarga o'tdilar.^{[iqtibos kerak ]}

Hozirda mavjud elektron bo'linish ruxsatnoma berish standartlari va uydan tashqarida qurol olib yurish huquqi bo'yicha bir nechta federal tuman sudlari o'rtasida. The 9-chi va 3-chi O'chirish sxemalari ruxsat berish siyosati foydasiga qaror qildi, ammo 7-chi va D.C. O'chirish sxemalari davlatlar siyosatni amalga oshirishi shart degan qarorga kelishdi, chunki qurol olib yurish huquqi uydan tashqarida.^[7][8]

The Federal qurolsiz maktab zonalari to'g'risidagi qonun litsenziyasiz shaxs olib yurishi mumkin bo'lgan chegaralar; qurol-yarog 'ochiq yoki yashirin holda, maktab zonasidan 300 metr masofada olib yurish taqiqlanadi, bunda federal qonunlarda davlat tomonidan berilgan qurol-yarog' ruxsatnomalari egalariga federal qonunlarda berilgan holatlar bundan mustasno (shtat qonunlari maktab zonasini olib yurishning noqonuniyligini tasdiqlashi mumkin). litsenziya egalari tomonidan), va ostida LEOSA amaldagi va faxriy ravishda iste'fodagi huquqni muhofaza qilish organlari xodimlariga (ruxsatnomadan qat'i nazar, odatda shtat qonuni).

Zobit bilan aloqada bo'lganingizda, ba'zi davlatlar ushbu ofitserga sizning qo'lingizda qurol borligi to'g'risida xabar berishingizni talab qiladi.^[9][10] Ayrim davlatlarning ruxsat berish siyosati haqida batafsil ma'lumot uchun qarang Shtatlarda qurol-yarog 'to'g'risidagi qonunlar.

Ruxsat berish qoidalari

• Cheklanmagan yurisdiktsiya: yashirin qurolni olib yurish uchun ruxsatnoma talab qilinmaydigan bittasi
• Yurisdiktsiya masalalariyashirin qurolni olib yurish uchun litsenziyani talab qiladigan, ammo bunday litsenziyalar faqat qonunda belgilangan aniq mezonlarga javob beradigan bo'lsa; litsenziyalarni berishda vakolatli organ o'z ixtiyoriga ega emas va talabnoma beruvchidan "xayrli ish" ko'rsatishi shart emas.
• May oyidagi yurisdiktsiyayashirin qurolni olib yurish uchun ruxsat talab qiladigan va agar bunday ruxsat berish qisman mahalliy hokimiyatning ixtiyorida bo'lsa (ko'pincha sherif bo'limi yoki politsiya).
• Muammo yo'q yurisdiktsiya: juda cheklangan istisnolardan tashqari - har qanday xususiy fuqaroning jamoat joyida yashiringan qurolni olib yurishiga yo'l qo'ymaydi

Yurisdiktsiya bo'yicha yashirin tashish holati

Yurisdiktsiya[11]	Cheklanmagan	Muammo	May-son	Muammo yo'q	Norezident Ruxsatnomalar mavjud	O'zaro munosabatlarga ruxsat bering[12]
Alabama		Y[13]				Ha
Alyaska	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Ha
Amerika Samoasi				Y		Yo'q
Arizona	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.			Y	Ha
Arkanzas	Y[14]	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Ha
Kaliforniya		Amalda 2020 yil yanvar holatiga ko'ra 58 ta okrugdan 45tasida; ushbu okruglar ichidagi shaharlar qattiqroq bo'lishi mumkin.[15]	Y	Amalda 2020 yil yanvaridan boshlab 58 ta mamlakatdan 9tasida ushbu tumanlar ichidagi shaharlar yumshoqroq bo'lishi mumkin.[15]		Yo'q
Kolorado		Y				Qisman (33 shtat); Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Konnektikut		Amalda[16]	Y		Y	Yo'q
Delaver			Y		Kamdan kam chiqarilgan	Qisman (21 shtat)
Kolumbiya okrugi	Qisqacha 2014 yil 27 iyuldan 2014 yil 29 iyulgacha. Tafsilotlar uchun quyida ko'rib chiqing.	Y			Y[17]	Yo'q
Florida		Y			Y	Qisman (35 shtat); Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Gruziya		Y				Qisman (32 shtat)
Guam		Y[18]				Yo'q
Gavayi			Y	Amalda[19]		Yo'q
Aydaho	Y(faqat 2020 yil 1 iyulgacha yashovchilar)[20]	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.			Y	Ha
Illinoys	Bo'shatilgan va qutiga, qurol olib yuradigan quti, yuk tashish qutisi yoki boshqa idishga ilova qilingan[21][22][23][24][25]	Y[26][27][28][29]			Faqat Arkanzas, Aydaho, Missisipi, Nevada, Texas va Virjiniya aholisi uchun.[30]	Avtotransport vositalarida faqat tashish mumkin
Indiana		Y			Y	Ha
Ayova		Y			Y	Ha
Kanzas	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Ha
Kentukki	Y[31]	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Ha
Luiziana		Y				Qisman (36 shtat)
Meyn	YTashish ruxsatisiz yashirilgan bo'lsa, xabar berish majburiyati.	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.			Y	Qisman (27 shtat); Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Merilend			Y	Amalda[32]	Kamdan-kam hollarda chiqarilgan[32]	Yo'q
Massachusets shtati			Y	Amalda ba'zi shaharlarda / tumanlarda	Kamdan-kam hollarda chiqarilgan	Yo'q
Michigan		Y				Ha; Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Minnesota		Y			Y	Qisman (15 shtat)
Missisipi	YFaqat belbog '/ yelka g'ilofida, g'ilofda,[33] sumka, sumka, sumka, shunga o'xshash boshqa sumka yoki portfel yoki to'liq yopiq holda.[34]	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadlarida yoki yashiringan holda, g'ilofsiz, oyoq Bilagi zo'rda yoki qonun istisnolarida ko'zda tutilmagan boshqa usullardan foydalangan holda.				Ha
Missuri	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida va cheklangan joylarda ochiq tashish.				Ha
Montana	Shahar chegaralaridan tashqarida.	Y				Qisman (43 shtat)
Nebraska		Y				Qisman (37 shtat)
Nevada		Y			Y	Qisman (30 shtat)
Nyu-Xempshir	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.			Y	Qisman (28 shtat); Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Nyu-Jersi			Y	Amalda[35][36]	Kamdan-kam hollarda chiqarilgan[35][36]	Yo'q
Nyu-Meksiko	Yuk tushirildi.	Y				Qisman (23 shtat)
Nyu York			Y	Amalda ba'zi shaharlarda / tumanlarda, masalan. NYC[37]		Yo'q
Shimoliy Karolina		Y[38]				Ha
Shimoliy Dakota	YFaqat Shimoliy Dakota aholisi. Tashish ruxsatisiz yashirilgan bo'lsa, xabar berish majburiyati.	YO'zaro kelishuv va ochiq tashish uchun.			Y	Qisman (39 shtat)
Shimoliy Mariana orollari				Y		Yo'q
Ogayo shtati		Y			Y	Ha
Oklaxoma	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Ha
Oregon		Y[39]			Y Faqat CA, ID, NV va WA aholisi uchun.	Yo'q
Pensilvaniya		Y			Y	Qisman (29 shtat); Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Puerto-Riko	2015 yil 20 iyundan 2016 yil 31 oktyabrgacha.	Y				Ha
Rod-Aylend		YMahalliy ruxsatnomalar	YBosh prokuror ruxsatnomalar berdi	Amalda Bosh prokuratura tomonidan berilgan ruxsatnomalar uchun	Kamdan-kam hollarda chiqarilgan[iqtibos kerak ]	Avtotransport vositalarida faqat tashish mumkin
Janubiy Karolina		Y			Y	Qisman (25 shtat); Faqatgina yashash uchun ruxsatnoma
Janubiy Dakota	Y	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Ha
Tennessi		Y[40]			Y	Ha
Texas		Y[41][42]			Y	Qisman (43 shtat)
AQSh Virjiniya orollari			Y	Amalda[iqtibos kerak ]		O'zaro qonunchilikka ega, ammo boshqa davlat ruxsatnomalarini tan olmaydi
Yuta		Y[43]			Y	Ha
Vermont	Y					Yo'q
Virjiniya		Y[44]			Y	Ha[45]
Vashington		Y			Y	Qisman (10 shtat)
G'arbiy Virjiniya	Y[46][47][48][49]	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Qisman (35 shtat)
Viskonsin		Y				Qisman (47 shtat)
Vayoming	YFaqat Vayoming aholisi.	YO'zaro kelishuv maqsadida.				Qisman (35 shtat)
AQSh harbiy inshootlari			Y[50]			Yo'q
Mahalliy amerikaliklarning rezervasyonlari			Y		Turli xil	Turli xil

Yashirin olib o'tishga ruxsat berishga oid davlat qoidalari odatda to'rtta toifaga bo'linadi, ular Cheklanmagan, Chiqarilgan, Mayda chiqarilgan va chiqarilgan emas.

Cheklanmagan

An cheklanmagan yurisdiktsiya - bu a ruxsatnoma yashirin qurolni olib yurish talab qilinmaydi. Buni ba'zan shunday deyishadi konstitutsiyaviy yuk. Cheklanmagan toifalar ichida mavjud bo'lgan davlatlar mavjud to'liq cheklanmagan, qonuniy ochiq yoki yashirin olib yurish uchun hech qanday ruxsatnoma talab qilinmaydigan joyda va qisman cheklanmagan, agar yashirin olib yurishning ma'lum shakllari ruxsatisiz qonuniy bo'lishi mumkin bo'lsa, boshqa transport turlari uchun ruxsat talab qilinishi mumkin.

AQSh shtatlari orasida Alyaska, Arizona, Arkanzas, Aydaho, Kanzas, Kentukki (2019 yil 26-iyun), Men, Missisipi, Missuri, Nyu-Xempshir, Shimoliy Dakota (faqat yashovchilar; faqat yashirin tashish), Oklaxoma (1-noyabr, 2019), Janubiy Dakota (2019 yil 1-iyuldan kuchga kiradi), Vermont, G'arbiy Virjiniya^[49] va Vayominning (faqat aholisi) to'liq cheklovlari yo'q va qurolga egalik qilish taqiqlanmaganlarga yashirin qurolni har qanday joyda ruxsatisiz qonun bilan cheklanmagan deb hisoblanmagan joyda olib yurishga ruxsat beradi. Shimoliy Dakota va Vayoming shtat aholisiga faqat transport vositalarini tarqatish uchun ruxsat beradi; norezidentlar hali ham o'z shtatlari tomonidan ushbu shtatlarda yashirin ravishda olib yurish uchun berilgan ruxsatnomaga ega bo'lishlari kerak. Missisipida yashirin tashish uchun ruxsatnomasiz tashish faqat ma'lum tashish uslublarini qamrab oladi; yuqoridagi jadvalga qarang. Ushbu davlatlar shuningdek ochiq tashish Shimoliy Dakota va Missuri shtatining ayrim joylari bundan mustasno, ruxsatisiz to'pponcha.^{[51][52][53][54][55]}

Vermontda olib yurish uchun yashirin litsenziyalarni berish bo'yicha hech qanday qoidalar mavjud emas, chunki hech qachon zarur bo'lmagan. Shunday qilib, boshqa shtatlarda qurol olib yurishni istagan Vermont aholisi shtat tomonidan belgilangan manzilda amal qiladigan litsenziyani olishi kerak. Ommabop tanlov - boshqa 28 shtatdagi norezidentlar uchun amal qiladigan Florida shtatidagi yashirin qurolga ruxsat. Qolganlari konstitutsiyaviy yuk ilgari davlatlar transport vositalarini cheklash to'g'risidagi qonunlar qabul qilinishidan oldin yashirish-olib yurish uchun litsenziya talablarini ilgari surishgan va davlatlararo o'zaro munosabatlar maqsadida (shtat rezidentlariga yashirin qurol bilan boshqa davlatlarga sayohat qilishlariga imkon berish) uchun litsenziyalar berishni davom ettirmoqdalar. , ushbu davlat qonuniga rioya qilish).

Montana, Nyu-Meksiko va Oklaxoma shtatlari qisman cheklanmagan shtatlardir. Xususan, Montana hozirda biron bir munitsipalitetdan tashqarida joylarda yashirin holda olib o'tishga ruxsat beradi. Nyu-Meksiko qonunlar, shaxsga qurolsiz qurolni ruxsatisiz olib yurishini yashirishga imkon beradi. Nyu-Meksiko, shuningdek, mototsikllar, ko'ngil ochish transport vositalari (velosipedlar), velosipedlar yoki ot minib yurish paytida, yuklangan qurolni ochiq yoki yashirin ravishda olib yurishga imkon beradi. Oklaxoma, ruxsat berilmagan davlatlarda yashovchilarga ochiq yoki yashirin holda olib yurishga ruxsat beradi, agar bunday shaxslar o'z uylaridan haqiqiy guvohnomaga ega bo'lsalar. Yuqorida sanab o'tilgan barcha davlatlar ruxsat berishni talab qiladigan yashirin tashish rejimlari uchun ruxsatnoma asosida beriladi.

2014 yil 24-iyulda Vashington DC qurolni olib yurish taqiqlanganligi konstitutsiyaga zid deb topilgan va qaror bekor qilinmagan qisqa vaqt ichida konstitutsiyaviy yurisdiksiyaga aylandi.^[56] Qarorda aytilishicha, qonuniy ravishda ro'yxatdan o'tgan avtomat qurolga ega bo'lgan har qanday fuqaro uni ruxsatnomasiz olib yurishi mumkin, og'ir jinoyati bo'lmagan norezidentlar ham olib yurishlari mumkin. Ushbu qaror 2014 yil 29 iyunda qoldirilgan.^{[57][58][59][60]}

Muammo

A berilishi kerak yurisdiktsiya - bu talab qiladigan narsadir litsenziya yashirin qurolni olib yurish, lekin agar bunday litsenziyalar berish faqat qonunda belgilangan aniq mezonlarga javob beradigan bo'lsa; litsenziyalarni berishda vakolatli organ o'z ixtiyoriga ega emas va talabnoma beruvchidan "xayrli ish" ko'rsatishi shart emas. Shall-Issue yurisdiktsiyasidagi qonunlar odatda vakolatli organ deb ta'kidlaydi chiqaradi vakolatli organlardan farqli o'laroq, mezonlarga javob beradigan bo'lsa, litsenziya chiqarishi mumkin ularning ixtiyoriga ko'ra litsenziya.

Litsenziyaning odatiy talablariga yashash joyi, minimal yosh, barmoq izlarini topshirish, kompyuterda tezkor tekshiruvdan o'tish (yoki batafsilroq qo'lda tekshiruv), sertifikatlangan qurol / o'qotar qurol xavfsizligi sinfiga borish, qurolni yaxshi bilishini ko'rsatadigan amaliy malakadan o'tish va kerakli to'lovni to'lash kiradi. . Ushbu talablar yurisdiktsiyaga ko'ra juda xilma-xil bo'lib, ba'zilarida bundaylar kam yoki umuman yo'q, boshqalarda ko'p yoki barchasi mavjud.

Quyidagi davlatlar: Alabama, Alyaska, Arizona, Arkanzas, Kolorado, Kolumbiya okrugi, Florida, Jorjiya, Aydaho, Illinoys, Indiana, Ayova, Kanzas, Kentukki, Luiziana, Men, Michigan, Minnesota, Missisipi, Missuri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Nyu-Xempshir, Nyu-Meksiko, Shimoliy Karolina,^[38] Shimoliy Dakota, Ogayo, Oklaxoma, Oregon,^[39] Pensilvaniya, Rod-Aylend (mahalliy hokimiyat tomonidan berilgan ruxsatnomalar uchun), Janubiy Karolina, Janubiy Dakota, Tennesi,^[40] Texas,^[41][42] Yuta,^[43] Virjiniya, Vashington, G'arbiy Virjiniya, Viskonsin va Vayoming.^[11] Guam hududi, shuningdek, 296-sonli qonun qabul qilinishi bilan chiqarilishi kerak^[61] va Puerto-Riko 2020 yildan boshlab.^[62]

Ba'zi bir davlatlar va yurisdiktsiyalar, qonun bo'yicha "chiqarishi" mumkin bo'lsa-da, o'z vakolatli organlarini barcha yoki deyarli barcha malakali murojaat etuvchilarga litsenziyalar berishga yo'naltiradilar va shu sababli ular amalda "beriladigan" hisoblanadi. Konnektikut va ba'zi shahar va tumanlar Kaliforniya, Massachusets shtati va Nyu York misollar.^{[iqtibos kerak ]}

Konnektikut qonunchiligi CCW litsenziyalarini may-emissiya asosida berilishini belgilab qo'ygan, ammo shtat sudlari qaror berishicha, emissiya qiluvchi organlar CCW litsenziyalarini barcha qonuniy talablarga javob beradigan talabnoma beruvchilarga berish sharti bilan berishlari kerak, chunki Konnektikutdagi boshqa shtatlardan farqli o'laroq. qonun hujjatlarida talabnoma beruvchidan litsenziya olish uchun "zarur va asosli sabablarni" ko'rsatishi talab qilinmaydi.^{[iqtibos kerak ]}

Cheklangan ixtiyorga ega bo'lgan masala ariza beruvchining ariza beruvchining yaroqliligiga yoki ruxsat so'rash sababiga asoslanib, arizachilarga yashirin ko'chirish ruxsatnomasini berish huquqini cheklash huquqiga ega bo'lgan sof emissiya va maya siyosat chegaralari bilan chegaralanadigan litsenziyalashning bir qismidir. , hatto abituriyent talab qilingan har qanday tayyorgarlikni tugatgandan va fon tekshiruvidan o'tganidan keyin ham. Bunday litsenziyalash amaliyotiga ega bo'lgan davlatlarda, vakolatli organ ariza beruvchiga mos kelmasligini yoki ruxsat olish uchun zaruriy ehtiyoj yo'qligini tasdiqlovchi dalillar bilan ko'rsatishi shart. Bunday shtatlardagi rad etishlarning aksariyati, apellyatsiya arizasida ariza beruvchining orqa tekshiruvidan o'tganligi va ruxsat olish uchun har qanday o'quv talablarini bajargan taqdirda bekor qilinadi. Cheklangan ixtiyoriylikka yo'l qo'yadigan qonunlar chiqaradigan davlatlar Illinoys, Indiana, Minnesota, Nyu-Xempshir, Oregon va Pensilvaniya. Garchi qonun bilan chiqarilishi mumkin bo'lsa-da, Konnektikut amalda ham ushbu kichik qismga tushadi.

Ayrim yurisdiktsiyalar, ruxsatnoma egasi ruxsatnomaning amal qilish muddati tugashidan oldin (yoki ba'zi shtatlarda asl ruxsatnomaning amal qilish muddati tugaganidan keyin qisqa muddatli imtiyozli muddat) uzaytirish to'g'risidagi arizani topshirgan taqdirda, yashirin olib yurish uchun ruxsatnomalarni avtomatik ravishda yangilashga imkon beradi. Boshqa yurisdiktsiyalarda ruxsat oluvchidan o'q uzish uchun ariza xavfsizligini oshirish bo'yicha malaka oshirishni o'tash va yangilanish uchun ariza berishdan oldin jinoiy tekshiruvdan o'tish talab etiladi. Ba'zi yurisdiktsiyalar vaqti-vaqti bilan ruxsatnoma egalarining shaxsiy guvohnomalarini NICS fonni tekshirish tizimi. Boshqa yurisdiktsiyalar sudyadan sudya ruxsatnomani to'xtatib turishini talab qiladi, agar egasi muayyan huquqbuzarliklar uchun hibsga olingan bo'lsa (ishning keyinchalik ko'rib chiqilishiga qarab ruxsatni qaytarib olish / bekor qilish).

May-son

A chiqarilishi mumkin yurisdiktsiya - bu talab qiladigan narsadir ruxsatnoma yashirin qurolni olib yurish va bunday ruxsat berish qisman mahalliy hokimiyatning qaroriga binoan (ko'pincha sherif bo'limi yoki politsiya ), bir nechta davlatlar ushbu darajadagi huquqni davlat darajasidagi huquqni muhofaza qilish organlari ostida birlashtirgan holda. Bundan tashqari, aksariyat mayda yurisdiktsiyalardagi emitent vakolatli organlardan yashirin olib o'tish ruxsatnomasini rad etish uchun asosli sabablarni ko'rsatishi shart emas. Ayrim yurisdiktsiyalar chiqarishi mumkin bo'lgan ariza beruvchiga ruxsatnomani rad etish ustidan shikoyat qilish uchun ma'muriy va qonuniy yo'llar taqdim etilishi mumkin, boshqalari esa buni amalga oshirmaydi.

Qonunda, odatda, vakolatli organ turli mezonlarga javob beradigan bo'lsa, "ruxsat berishi" mumkinligi yoki ruxsatnoma beruvchining yashirin qurol olib yurishi uchun "yaxshi sabab" (yoki shunga o'xshash) bo'lishi kerakligi aytiladi. Bunday holatlarning aksariyatida o'zini o'zi himoya qilish ko'pincha "yaxshi sabab" talabini qondira olmaydi va ba'zi yurisdiktsiyalardagi vakolatli organlar ariza beruvchiga biron bir asosli sabab ko'rsatmasdan CCW ruxsatnomalarini o'zboshimchalik bilan rad etishlari ma'lum bo'lgan. rad etish uchun. Ayrim yurisdiktsiyalar, ruxsatnoma egasidan uzaytirilgandan keyin yashirin ko'chirish ruxsatnomasiga bo'lgan ehtiyojning asoslanishini talab qilishi kerak va "yaxshi sabablar" ni ko'rsatmasdan amal qilish muddati tugagan ruxsatnomani yangilashni rad etishi mumkin. Ushbu yurisdiktsiyalarning ba'zilari ruxsatnomani bergan organ o'z ixtiyori bilan ruxsatnomani tasdiqlashda foydalanilgan "yaxshi sabab" endi mavjud emasligini aniqlagandan keyin berilganidan keyin ruxsatnomani bekor qilishi mumkin. Nomzod chiqarishi mumkin bo'lgan boshqa yurisdiktsiyalar ruxsatnomani avtomatik ravishda yangilashga imkon beradi, agar ruxsat oluvchi har qanday o'qotar qurol xavfsizligi bo'yicha o'qitishni tugatsa va ruxsatnomaning amal qilish muddati tugamaguncha uni uzaytirish to'g'risidagi arizani topshirsa. Ayrim yurisdiktsiyalar, ariza beruvchiga ariza beruvchiga (masalan, axloqiy xulq-atvor) dalillarni (rezyume / o'quv rejasi, ma'lumotnoma, kredit tarixi va boshqalarni) taqdim etishni talab qilish orqali yashirin ko'chirish ruxsatnomalarini berishda vakolat beradi. ariza beruvchiga ruxsat berish uchun tegishli belgi beriladi.

Chiqarish va chiqarishni ajratishda, bu qonunning aniq xatida aniq ko'rinmasligi mumkin. Aksincha, davlatning may-chiqarishi va chiqarishi to'g'risida aniqroq aniqlovchi, arizachidan ruxsat olish uchun ariza berishda "yaxshi sabab" ko'rsatilishi talab etiladimi yoki yo'qmi. Sud pretsedenti, shuningdek, davlat qonunchiligidagi bahs-munozaralarni hisobga olmasdan, davlatning chiqarishi yoki chiqarishi mumkinligini aniqlashda muhim rol o'ynaydi. Masalan, Nyu-York mayda muomalada bo'lgan davlatdir, garchi uning yashirin transport vositalarini litsenziyalash to'g'risidagi qonunlarida "chiqaradi" degan so'zlar mavjud, chunki Nyu-York qonunchiligi, yashirin ko'chirish ruxsatnomasini olish uchun ariza beruvchilardan "yaxshi sabab" ko'rsatishni talab qiladi. "Yaxshi sabab" juda sub'ektiv bo'lganligi sababli, Nyu-Yorkdagi emitentlar "yaxshi sabab" nimani anglatishini aniqlashda keng qarorga ega va oddiy fuqaroning yashirin olib yurish uchun ruxsat olish qobiliyati butun shtatda farq qiladi. Bundan farqli o'laroq, qo'shni Konnektikut shtatidagi to'pponchalarga ruxsat berish to'g'risidagi qonunda Konnektikut amalda davlat tomonidan chiqarilganiga qaramay, "chiqarishi mumkin" degan so'zlar mavjud. Buning sababi shundaki, Konnektikut shtatining to'pponchasiga ruxsat berish to'g'risidagi qonuni talabnoma beruvchidan avtomat pistoleti uchun hujjat topshirishda "yaxshi sabab" ko'rsatishini talab qilmaydi. Konnektikutning ruxsat beruvchi qonunchiligida sub'ektiv "asosli sabablar" standarti yo'qligi sababli, shtat sudlari bir necha bor va doimiy ravishda qaror chiqargan organlar to'pponchadan foydalanish uchun shtatning qonuniy talablariga javob beradigan talabgorlarga to'pponchadan ruxsat berishlari kerak.

May oyidagi nashrni ruxsatnoma berishni yurisdiktsiyasida ruxsat olish zarurligini tasdiqlash uchun ariza beruvchining zimmasiga yuklatiladigan hujjat bilan taqqoslash mumkin, ammo sud vakolatida ruxsatnomani rad etishni tasdiqlash uchun dalil yukini taqqoslash mumkin. berilgan organga tegishli.

Quyidagi davlatlar qonun bilan chiqarilishi mumkin: Kaliforniya, Konnektikut, Delaver, Gavayi, Merilend, Massachusets shtati, Nyu-Jersi, Nyu York va Rod-Aylend.

Bunday davlat de-yure may chiqarishi mumkin bo'lgan yurisdiktsiya amalda chiqarilishidan tortib chiqarilgunigacha bo'lishi mumkin,^[63][64] ya'ni, ruxsat etilgan may chiqarilishi ga cheklovchi may chiqarishi mumkin, har bir litsenziyalovchi organning talabnoma beruvchilarga ruxsatnoma berishga tayyorligi asosida:

• Konnektikut va Delaver hukumat siyosati yoki sud ustuvorligi bilan barcha vakolatli bo'lmagan mezonlarga javob beradigan arizalarni tasdiqlash uchun to'g'ridan-to'g'ri vakolatli organlarni yuborishi mumkin bo'lgan may-emissiya ruxsat etilgan davlatlar deb hisoblanadi.
• Gavayi, Merilend va Nyu-Jersi emissiya qiluvchi vakolatli organlar ko'pgina yoki barcha murojaatlarni rad etishga qaratilgan, yoki "yaxshi sabab" talablariga javob berishga yoki chiqarishni maxsus taqiqlovchi agentlik siyosatiga asoslanib, cheklovlarni chiqarishi mumkin bo'lgan yurisdiktsiyalar deb hisoblanadi. Bundan tashqari, Merilend va Nyu-Jersi talabnoma beruvchidan ruxsat olish uchun ariza topshirilgan paytda o'z uylaridan tashqarida mavjud bo'lgan hayotlariga aniq va zudlik bilan tahdid qilishning muhim dalillarini taqdim etishni talab qiladi. Bundan tashqari, Roy-Aylend shtat bo'ylab ruxsat olish uchun ariza beruvchidan ruhiy kasalliklarni tekshirish uchun ariza beruvchining hisobidan topshirishni talab qiladi.
• Kaliforniya, Massachusets shtati va Nyu York shtat ichida o'zgarib turadi, chunki "yaxshi sabab" ning mezonlari mahalliy darajada belgilanadi. Ichki Kaliforniyada, Massachusets shtatining qishloq joylarida va Nyu-York shtatining tepasida odatda o'ziga xos tahdidni isbotisiz "yaxshi sabab" sifatida o'zini himoya qilishni qabul qiladi va talabnoma beruvchilarning aksariyat qismiga tekshiruvdan o'tgan va o'qotar qurol xavfsizligi bo'yicha kerakli o'quv kurslarini o'taganlarga ruxsat beradi. Shu bilan birga, yashirin ko'chirish uchun ruxsatnomalarni olish shahar aholisining oddiy fuqarolari tomonidan, masalan, deyarli imkonsizdir Nyu-York shahri, Long Island, Boston, Los Anjeles va San-Fransisko metropoliten joylar. Ushbu joylarda "yaxshi sabab" ta'rifi, odatda, ariza beruvchining hayotiga boshqa va boshqa usullar bilan yumshatib bo'lmaydigan aniq va bevosita tahdidlar bilan cheklanadi. Shuningdek, ushbu shtatlarda mahalliy "yaxshi sabab" ta'riflari litsenziyalashni amalga oshiradigan mahalliylarga qaraganda ancha cheklovli bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan, ammo kamdan-kam hollarda yoki hech qachon ruxsat bermaydigan okruglar yoki munitsipalitetlarga qaraganda kamroq cheklovli mahalliy yurisdiktsiyalar mavjud.
• Rod-Aylend davlat qonuni ikki darajali; mahalliy hokimiyat idoralari davlat qonuni va sud pretsedenti tomonidan boshqariladi (Archer va McGarry) ruxsat berish siyosatini ishlab chiqish, lekin Bosh prokuratura o'z vakolatxonasi tomonidan berilgan ruxsatnomalar bo'yicha ixtiyoriy vakolatlarga ega. Ham mahalliy hokimiyat organlari, ham AG tomonidan berilgan ruxsatnomalar davlat miqyosida amal qiladi, ammo AG tomonidan berilgan ruxsatnoma umuman ochiq tashish uchun talab qilinadi. AGning tavsiyasiga binoan ba'zi mahalliy yurisdiktsiyalar barcha murojaat etuvchilarni AG idorasiga va "mayli" davlat darajasidagi tizimni buzgan holda yuborishadi. Archer.^[65]

Ba'zi bir yurisdiktsiyalarda ruxsatnomalar faqat taniqli shaxs maqomiga ega, siyosiy aloqalari bo'lgan yoki yuqori darajada boylikka ega bo'lgan shaxslarga beriladi,^[66][67][68] natijada ba'zi bir yurisdiktsiyalarda CCW ruxsatnomalari qanday ko'rib chiqilishi bo'yicha muntazam korruptsiya ayblovlari paydo bo'ldi.^[69] Bundan tashqari, emitent organlar o'zboshimchalik bilan belgilangan to'lovlarni undiradilar, ular CCW ruxsatnomasi uchun asosiy ishlov berish to'lovidan ancha yuqori bo'lib, aksariyat murojaat etuvchilar uchun CCW ruxsatnomasini yaroqsiz holga keltiradilar. Masalan, Nyu-York shahrining yashirin ko'chirish ruxsatnomasini olish uchun ariza topshirish uchun to'lov va boshqa ma'muriy to'lovlar birlashtirilganda, odatda, taxminan 5000 dollar turadi.

So'nggi holatlarda, cheklangan diskretlik to'g'risidagi qonunlarga qarshi, federal okrug va apellyatsiya sudlari odatda murojaat qilishdi oraliq tekshirish ushbu va boshqa Ikkinchi tuzatishlar bilan bog'liq ishlarda, sudlar yashirin ravishda olib boriladigan qonunlarni "shaxsning qurol saqlash va olib yurish huquqiga tajovuz qilish" ni tan olish bilan birga, bunday huquqbuzarliklar bundan buyon ham jamoat xavfsizligini ta'minlashda davlatning muhim manfaatlariga yo'l qo'yilishini tan olishadi. " SCOTUS tomonidan "individual" va "asosiy" deb ta'riflangan har qanday va boshqa barcha huquqlar, amaldagi birlashma ishlarini o'z ichiga olgan oldingi qarorlarda ko'rsatilgandek, "qat'iy tekshiruv" standartini talab qiladi. Merilendda, Vullard va Sheridan, Merilend okrugi uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari okrug sudi Merilend qonunchiligiga binoan "yaxshi sabab" yo'qligi sababli ruxsatnomani uzaytirish rad etilgan Merilend fuqarosi foydasiga qaror qildi.^[70] The To'rtinchi davra bo'yicha AQSh apellyatsiya sudi "yaxshi sabab" talabini qondirish bilan qaytarilgan oraliq tekshirish uydan tashqarida qurol olib yurish huquqiga qo'yilgan cheklovlarga nisbatan qo'llaniladi va 2013 yil 21 martda "yaxshi sabab" talabini tiklaydi.^[71] Ishda da'vogarlar iltimosnoma bilan murojaat qilishdi sertifikat ichida Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi; sud 15-oktabr kuni hech qanday izohsiz sertifikatari rad etdi.^[72] Nyu-Yorkning shunga o'xshash "yaxshi sabab" talabi ham rad etildi Kachalskiy va Kakase. Biroq, sertifikat 2013 yil 15 aprelda SCOTUS rad etilgan. Drake v Filko, bir nechta da'vogarlar ishtirokida (shu jumladan, bir o'g'irlanish jabrlanuvchisi) Nyu-Jersining ruxsat berish tizimiga binoan ruxsatnomalarni rad etishgan; kostyum Nyu-Jersining tashish uchun ruxsat olish uchun "haqli ehtiyoj" talabini rad etdi. The Qo'shma Shtatlarning Uchinchi davri bo'yicha apellyatsiya sudi sudning konstitutsiyaviy, ushlab turuvchi (xuddi 4-davraga o'xshagan) talabini qondirganligini tasdiqladi Vullard va 2-davr Kachalskiy) Nyu-Jersi nizomi omon qolganligini oraliq tekshirish.^[73] Apellyatsiya sudlari qarorlarini qabul qilishda qabul qilingan qonunlarni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi umumiy mavzu shundan iboratki, davlat yoki mahalliy siyosat qurollarni kimning jamoat joyida olib yurish huquqini berishni cheklashda "hukumat jamoat xavfsizligini ta'minlashda muhim ahamiyatga ega" bo'lib, davlat qonun chiqaruvchi organlari litsenziyani yashirish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni qabul qilishadi. mavjud bo'lish huquqiga ega, ammo yashirin olib yurish huquqiga ega bo'lganlar sonini konstitutsiyaviy yig'ilish uchun imkon qadar kam sonli cheklash mezonlarini belgilaydi. Sudlar ushbu qonunlar shu asosda oraliq tekshiruvdan omon qoladi, deb qaror qildilar. Biroq, boshqa barcha "asosiy" va "individual" huquqlar "qat'iy tekshiruv" standartiga bo'ysunadi, qarang, Dunkan, 391 AQSh, 149 va n. 15, supra., "Amerika nuqtai nazaridan asosiy ahamiyatga ega bo'lgan huquq Federal Hukumat va Shtatlarga teng ravishda taalluqlidir."

AQSh harbiy inshootlarida yashirin tashish

Qurolli xizmatlar a'zolari qurol-yarog 'bo'yicha keng ko'lamli ta'lim olishlari mumkin bo'lsa-da, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari harbiy O'rnatishlarda mamlakatda shaxsiy qurolga ega qurolni saqlash, tashish va olib yurishning eng cheklangan qoidalari mavjud.

Harbiy inshootda shaxsiy qurolni olib yurish vakolati o'rnatish qo'mondoniga tegishli, garchi inshootlarga qurolni olib o'tishga ruxsat berish vakolati odatda Provost marshali. Harbiy inshootlar davlat tomonidan berkitilgan olib yurish uchun ruxsatnomalarni tan olmaydi va davlat qurol-yarog 'to'g'risidagi qonunlar, odatda, ushbu bino joylashgan davlatdan qat'i nazar, harbiy bazalarga taalluqli emas. Federal qonun (18 USC, 930-bo'lim), odatda, harbiy qo'mondonlik tomonidan tasdiqlanmasdan qurollarni saqlash, tashish va olib o'tishni taqiqlaydi. Federal qonun o'rnatish qo'mondonlariga o'zlarining moslamalari uchun o'qotar qurol siyosatini belgilashda keng vakolat beradi. Amalda, mahalliy ixtiyoriylik ko'pincha har bir harbiy bo'linma shtab-kvartirasi va yirik qo'mondonliklarning siyosati va ko'rsatmalari bilan cheklanadi.

O'rnatish qoidalari kamdan-kam holatlarda aksariyat bazalar uchun chiqarilishidan farq qilishi mumkin. Qurollarni olib yurishga imkon beradigan qurilmalar odatda belgilangan joylarga va ma'lum maqsadlarda olib o'tishni cheklaydi (ya'ni, ushbu joyda tasdiqlangan joylarda ov qilish yoki rasmiy ravishda ruxsat berilgan o'q otish musobaqalari). O'rnatish komandirlari talabnoma beruvchidan qurolni xavfsizligi bo'yicha keng qamrovli tayyorgarlikni talab qilishi, ruhiy holatni baholashi va bunday ruxsat berilgunga qadar uning bo'linma qo'mondonidan (yoki ish beruvchidan) tavsiyanoma olishlari mumkin. Harbiy inshootda yashovchi xodimlar odatda shaxsiy qurollarini qurol-yarog 'jihozlarida saqlashlari shart, garchi o'rnatish qo'mondoni yoki provost-marshal harbiy xizmatchiga shaxsiy qurollarini o'zlarining yashash joylarida saqlashlariga ruxsat berishlari mumkin. bor qurol xavfsiz yoki shunga o'xshash tarzda ishlab chiqarilgan shkaf, u erda qurol-yarog 'xavfsizligini ta'minlash mumkin.

2011 yilgacha harbiy qo'mondonlar bazadan tashqarida istiqomat qilayotgan harbiy xizmatchilarga o'qotar qurolni cheklashlari mumkin, masalan, Provost Marshal bazasida o'qotar qurollarni majburiy ro'yxatdan o'tkazish, harbiy xizmatchilar tomonidan qurolni qurol bilan olib o'tishni taqiqlash yoki taqiqlash. olib yurish uchun davlat ruxsatnomasi va harbiy xizmatchilardan foydalanilmaganda qurolni himoya qilish uchun quroldan saqlanadigan yoki shunga o'xshash konteynerga ega bo'lishi kerak. Qoidaga kiritilgan 2011 moliya yili uchun milliy mudofaani avtorizatsiya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun qo'mondonlarning bazadan tashqarida yashovchi harbiy xizmatchilar tomonidan shaxsiy qurolga ega bo'lish va ulardan foydalanishda cheklovlar qo'yish vakolatini cheklashi.

Muammo yo'q

A muammosiz yurisdiktsiya - juda cheklangan istisnolardan tashqari - har qanday xususiy fuqaroning jamoat joyida yashirin qo'l qurolini olib yurishiga yo'l qo'ymaydigan narsa. Ushbu atama yashirin olib o'tishga ruxsat berilmasligi (yoki tan olinishi) haqiqatini anglatadi. 2013 yil iyul oyidan beri Illinoys shtatida yashirin transport vositalarining qonuniylashtirilishi bilan hozirgi kunda hech qanday muammosiz shtatlar mavjud emas o'z-o'zidan; Amerika Samoasi hududi AQSh yurisdiksiyasi bo'lib, yashirin olib yurishni butunlay taqiqlaydi.

Shtat qonunchiligiga muvofiq texnik jihatdan chiqarilishi mumkin bo'lsa-da, Gavayi, Merilend, Nyu-Jersi va ba'zi shahar va tumanlar Kaliforniya, Massachusets shtati va Nyu York amalda hech qanday muammosiz yurisdiktsiya bo'lib, hukumat siyosati o'z ixtiyoriga ko'ra vakolatli mansabdor shaxslarni litsenziyani kamdan-kam hollarda yoki hech qachon bermaslikka yo'naltiradi. Bundan tashqari, Qo'shma Shtatlarning ba'zi izolyatsion hududlari (AQSh Virjiniya orollari, Amerika Samoasi va boshqalar) amalda muammosiz yurisdiktsiyalardir. Aksariyat yurisdiktsiyalarda qonunlardan istisno mavjud bo'lib, ular huquqni muhofaza qilish organlarining faol va iste'fodagi amaldorlari, xizmat paytida qurollangan xavfsizlik xizmati xodimlari va xizmat kiyimida va Qurolli Kuchlar a'zolari uchun ochiq yoki yashirin olib yurishga ruxsat beradi. 2011 va 2013 yillarda litsenziyalangan yashirin tashish qonuniylashtirilgunga qadar, Viskonsin va Illinoys so'nggi muammosiz qolgan shtatlar edi. Legallashtirishga qadar, Viskonsin yashirin olib yurish taqiqlangan, lekin ochiq transport davlat bo'ylab qonuniy edi. Illinoys yashirin olib yurishni taqiqlagan va odatda ko'p joylarda ochiq tashishni taqiqlagan.

Yashirin tashish bo'yicha cheklovlar

Mahalliy hukumatlar tomonidan yashirin ravishda qurol va boshqa qurollarni olib yurishni taqiqlash Qo'shma Shtatlar tashkil topgunga qadar bo'lgan. 1686 yilda Nyu-Jersi qonunchiligida "hech kim yoki biron bir kishi ... ushbu viloyat ichida biron bir cho'ntak to'pponchasini yoki boshqa g'ayrioddiy yoki noqonuniy qurollarni kiyib yurishi shart emas." Federal hukumat o'rnatilgandan so'ng, shtatlar va mahalliy aholi yashirin qurol olib yurishni cheklashni davom ettirdilar. Tennesi qonuni bunga 1821 yildayoq taqiq qo'ygan. 1837 yilga kelib Gruziya "Ushbu davlat fuqarolarini o'lik qurolni asossiz va juda keng tarqalgan ishlatilishidan himoya qilish va himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun" ni kuchga kirdi. Ikki yil o'tgach, Alabama "Qurolni yashirincha olib yurishning yovuz amaliyotini bostirish to'g'risidagi qonun" bilan ergashdi. Delaver 1852 yilda bunday amaliyotni taqiqlagan.^[74] Ogayo ham 1859 yilda xuddi shunday yo'l tutgan, bu siyosat 1974 yilgacha amal qilgan.^[75] Shuningdek, shaharlar o'z chegaralarida qurollarni tartibga solishgan. 1881 yilda, Tombstone, Arizona "O'lik qurollarni olib o'tishga qarshi kurashish to'g'risida" gi 9-sonli Farmonni qabul qildi. O.Kda otishma. Korral o'sha yili.

Aksariyat yurisdiktsiyalarni chiqarishi mumkin bo'lgan ayrim yurisdiktsiyalar, vakolatli organlarga CCW ruxsatnomalariga, masalan, olib yurilishi mumkin bo'lgan qurollarning turi va kalibrlari bo'yicha cheklovlar qo'yishga imkon beradi (Massachusets shtati, Nyu-Meksiko ), ruxsatnoma amal qiladigan joylarga cheklovlar (Nyu York, Rod-Aylend, Illinoys ), tasdiqlangan ruxsatnomada ko'rsatilgan maqsadlarga yoki faoliyatga yashirin olib o'tishni cheklash (Kaliforniya, Massachusets, Nyu-Jersi, Nyu-York), jurnal hajmidagi cheklovlar (Konnektikut, Massachusets shtati, Nyu-York) yoki har qanday vaqtda ruxsat beruvchi tomonidan yashirilishi mumkin bo'lgan qurol-yaroqlar sonining cheklanishi (ba'zi shtatlar). Ikki shtatdan tashqari (Nyu-York va Gavayi) tomonidan berilgan ruxsatnomalar shtat bo'ylab amal qiladi. Odatda okruglar tomonidan beriladigan Nyu-York shtati to'pponchasiga litsenziyalar, bitta istisno bilan butun shtat bo'ylab amal qiladi. A permit not issued by New York City is invalid in that city, unless validated by its police commissioner.^[76][77] Permits issued by Hawaii are valid only in the county of issuance.

Training requirements

Some states require concealed carry applicants to certify their proficiency with a firearm through some type of training or instruction. Certain training courses developed by the Milliy miltiq uyushmasi that combine classroom and live-fire instruction typically meet most state training requirements. Some states recognize prior military or police service as meeting training requirements.^[78]

Classroom instruction would typically include qurol mechanics and terminology, cleaning and maintenance of a firearm, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon. Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues.

Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. During range instruction, applicants would typically learn and demonstrate safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency.

CCW training courses are typically completed in a single day and are good for a set period, the exact duration varying by state. Some states require re-training, sometimes in a shorter, simpler format, for each renewal.

A few states, e.g., South Carolina, recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Such states will ask for a military ID (South Carolina) for active persons or DD214 for honorably discharged persons. These few states will commonly request a copy of the applicant's BTR (Basic Training Record) proving an up-to-date pistol qualification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.^[79]

Virginia recognizes eight specific training options to prove competency in handgun handling, ranging from DD214 for honorably discharged military veterans, to certification from law enforcement training, to firearms training conducted by a state or NRA certified firearms instructor including electronic, video, or on-line courses. While any one of the eight listed options will be considered adequate proof, individual circuit courts may recognize other training options.^[78] A small number of states, such as Alabama and Georgia, have no training requirements to obtain a permit—only a requirement that the applicant successfully pass the required background check before issuance.

O'zaro munosabatlar

Level of permit reciprocity (recognition of out-of-state permits)^[12][80]

  Full reciprocity

  Full reciprocity for resident permits

  Vehicle carry only

  Partial reciprocity

  No reciprocity

CCW Reciprocity

Many jurisdictions recognize (honor) a permit or license issued by other jurisdictions. Recognition may be granted to all jurisdictions or some subset which meets a set of permit-issuing criteria, such as training comparable to the honoring jurisdiction or certain background checks. Several states have entered into formal agreements to mutually recognize permits. This arrangement is commonly called reciprocity or mutual recognition. A few states do not recognize permits issued by any other jurisdiction, but offer non-resident permits for out-of-state individuals (who possess a valid concealed carry permit from their home state) who wish to carry while visiting such states. There are also states that neither recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits nor issue permits to non-residents, resulting in a complete ban on concealed carry by non-residents in such states. There are also states that do not recognize out-of-state permits for carry on-foot, but do permit individuals with out-of-state concealed carry permits to carry while traveling in their vehicle (normally in accordance with the rules of the state of issuance).

Recognition and reciprocity of concealed carry privileges varies. Some states (e.g. Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio) unilaterally recognize all permits. Others such as Michigan, limit such universal recognition to residents of the permit-issuing state.^[81] While 37 states have reciprocity agreements with at least one other state and several states honor all out-of-state concealed carry permits, some states have special requirements like training courses or safety exams, and therefore do not honor permits from states that do not have such requirements for issue. Some states make exceptions for persons under the minimum age (usually 21) if they are active or honorably-discharged members of the military or a police force (the second of these two is subject additionally to federal qonun ). States that do not have this exemption generally do not recognize any license from states that do. An example of this is the state of Washington's refusal to honor any Texas LTC as Texas has the military exception to age.^[82] Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee have standard and enhanced permits that have different requirements to obtain and also have unique reciprocity with different states; Utah and West Virginia have provisional permits for 18-20 year olds with more limited recognition by other states.^[83]

Permits from Idaho (enhanced), Kansas, Michigan, and North Dakota (class 1) have the highest number of recognition by other states (39 states). One can obtain multiple state permits in an effort to increase the number of states where that user can carry a legally concealed weapon. It is common practice to use a CCW Reciprocity Map^[84] to gain clarity on which states will honor the person's combination of resident and non-resident permits given the variety of standards and legal policies from state to state. There are also various mobile applications^[85] that guide users in researching state concealed carry permit reciprocity.

Although carry may be legal under State law in accordance with reciprocity agreements, the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act subjects an out-of-state permit holder to federal felony prosecution if they carry a firearm within 1000 feet of any K–12 school's property line; however, the enforcement of this statute is rare given several states' nullification statutes prohibiting state law enforcement officers from enforcing federal firearms laws. However, states may have their own similar statutes that such officers will enforce, and potentially expose the carrier to later prosecution under the Act.

Restricted premises

While generally a concealed carry permit allows the permit holder to carry a concealed weapon in public, a state may restrict carry of a firearm including a permitted concealed weapon while in or on certain properties, facilities or types of businesses that are otherwise open to the public. These areas vary by state (except for the first item below; federal offices are subject to superseding federal law) and can include:

• Federal government facilities, including post offices, IRS offices, federal court buildings, military/VA facilities and/or correctional facilities, Amtrak trains and facilities, and Corps of Engineers-controlled property (carry in these places is prohibited by federal law and preempts any existing state law). Carry on land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (federal parks and wildlife preserves) is allowed by federal law as of the 2009 CARD Act, but is still subject to state law. However, carry into restrooms or any other buildings or structures located within federal parks is illegal in the United States, despite concealed carry being otherwise legal in federal parks with a permit recognized by the state in which the federal park is located. Similarly, concealed carry into caves located within federal parks is illegal.
• State and local government facilities, including courthouses, DMV/DoT offices, police stations, correctional facilities, and/or meeting places of government entities (exceptions may be made for certain persons working in these facilities such as judges, lawyers, and certain government officials both elected and appointed)
• Venues for political events, including rallies, parades, debates, and/or polling places
• Ta'lim muassasalari including elementary/secondary schools and colleges. Some states have "drop-off exceptions" which only prohibit carry inside school buildings, or permit carry while inside a personal vehicle on school property. Talabalar shaharchasini olib yurish laws vary by state.
• Public interscholastic^{[iqtibos kerak ]} and/or professional sporting events and/or venues (sometimes only during a time window surrounding such an event)
• Amusement parks, fairs, parades and/or carnivals^{[iqtibos kerak ]}
• Businesses that sell alcohol (sometimes only "by-the-drink" sellers like restaurants, sometimes only establishments defined as a "bar" or "nightclub", or establishments where the percentage of total sales from alcoholic beverages exceeds a specified threshold)
• Kasalxonalar (even if hospitals themselves are not restricted, "teaching hospitals" partnered with a medical school are sometimes considered "educational institutions"; exceptions are sometimes made for medical professionals working in these facilities)
• Cherkovlar, mosques and other "Houses of worship," usually at the discretion of the church clergy (Ohio allows with specific permission of house of worship)^[86]
• Municipal mass transit vehicles or facilities
• Sterile areas of airports (sections of the airport located beyond security screening checkpoints, unless explicitly authorized)
• Non-government facilities with heightened security measures (Nuclear facilities, power plants, dams, oil and gas production facilities, banks, factories, unless explicitly authorized)
• Aboard aircraft or ships unless specifically authorized by the pilot in command or ship captain
• Xususiy mulk where the lawful owner or lessee has posted a sign or verbally stated that firearms are not permitted
• Any public place, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (including certain prescription or over-the-counter medications, depending on jurisdiction)

"Opt-out" statutes ("gun-free zones")

Some states allow private businesses to post a specific sign prohibiting concealed carry within their premises. The exact language and format of such a sign varies by state. By posting the signs, businesses create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun; similar to regulations concerning schools, hospitals, and public gatherings.

Violation of such a sign, in some of these states, is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit and criminal prosecution. Other states, such as Virginia, enforce only trespassing laws when a person violates a "Gun Free Zone" sign. In some jurisdictions trespass by a person carrying a firearm may have more severe penalties than "simple" trespass, while in other jurisdictions, penalties are lower than for trespass.^[87]

Such states include: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,^[88] Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

There is considerable dispute over the effectiveness of such "gun-free zones ". Opponents of such measures, such as OpenCarry.org, state that, much like other malum prohibitum laws banning gun-related practices, only law-abiding individuals will heed the signage and disarm. Individuals or groups intent on committing far more serious crimes, such as armed robbery or murder, will not be deterred by signage prohibiting weapons. Further, the reasoning follows that those wishing to commit mass murder might intentionally choose gun-free venues like shopping malls, schools and churches (where weapons carry is generally prohibited by statute or signage) because the population inside is disarmed and thus less able to stop them.^[89]

In some states, business owners have been documented posting signs that appear to prohibit guns, but legally do not because the signs do not meet local or state laws defining required appearance, placement, or wording of signage. Such signage can be posted out of ignorance to the law, or intent to pacify gun control advocates while not actually prohibiting the practice. The force of law behind a non-compliant sign varies based on state statutes and case law. Some states interpret their statutes' high level of specification of signage as evidence that the signage must meet the specification exactly, and any quantifiable deviation from the statute makes the sign non-binding. Other states have decided in case law that if efforts were made in good faith to conform to the statutes, the sign carries the force of law even if it fails to meet current specification. Still others have such lax descriptions of what is a valid sign that virtually any sign that can be interpreted as "no guns allowed" is binding on the license holder.^{[iqtibos kerak ]}

Note that virtually all jurisdictions allow some form of oral communication by the lawful owner or controller of the property that a person is not welcome and should leave. This notice can be given to anyone for any reason (except for statuses that are protected by the Federal Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi 1964 y and other CRAs, such as race),^{[iqtibos kerak ]} including due to the carrying of firearms by that person, and refusal to heed such a request to leave may constitute trespassing.

Brandishing and printing

Printing refers to a circumstance where the shape or outline of a firearm is visible through a garment while the gun is still fully covered, and is generally not desired when carrying a concealed weapon. Brandishing can refer to different actions depending on jurisdiction. These actions can include printing through a garment, pulling back clothing to expose a gun, or unholstering a gun and exhibiting it in the hand. The intent to intimidate or threaten someone may or may not be required legally for it to be considered brandishing.

Brandishing is a crime in most jurisdictions, but the definition of brandishing varies widely.

Under California law, the following conditions have to be present to prove brandishing:

[1] A person, in the presence of another person, drew or exhibited a [deadly weapon, other than a firearm] [firearm, whether loaded or unloaded]; [and] [2] That person did so in a rude, angry, or threatening manner [or] [2] That person, in any manner, unlawfully used the [deadly weapon] [firearm] in a fight or quarrel] [.] [; and [3] The person was not acting in lawful self-defense.]^[90]

In Virginia law:

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

— Code of Virginia 18.2-282^[91]

Federal qonun

Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control Act passed by Congress in 1968 lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. During the application process for concealed carry states carry out thorough background checks to prevent these individuals from obtaining permits. Qo'shimcha ravishda Brady to'pponchasida zo'ravonlikning oldini olish to'g'risidagi qonun created an FBI maintained system in 1994 for instantly checking the backgrounds of potential firearms buyers in an effort to prevent these individuals from obtaining weapons.

Firearm Owners Protection Act

The Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 allows a gun owner sayohat qilish davlatlar in which their firearm possession is illegal as long as it is legal in the states of origination and destination, the owner is in transit and does not remain in the state in which firearm possession is illegal, and the firearm is transported unloaded and in a locked container. The FOPA addresses the issue of transport of private firearms from origin to destination for purposes lawful in state of origin and destination; FOPA does not authorize concealed carry as a weapon of defense during transit. Nyu-York shtati politsiyasi arrested those carrying firearms in violation of state law, and then required them to use FOPA as an ijobiy mudofaa to the charges of illegal possession.^{[iqtibos kerak ]}

Huquqni muhofaza qilish organlari xodimlarining xavfsizligi to'g'risidagi qonun

2004 yilda, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Kongressi enacted the Huquqni muhofaza qilish organlari xodimlarining xavfsizligi to'g'risidagi qonun, 18 U.S. Code 926B and 926C. This federal law allows two classes of persons – the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" – to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with the exception of areas where all firearms are prohibited without permission, and certain II sarlavha.

Federal Gun Free School Zones Act

The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act limits where a person may legally carry a firearm. It does this by making it generally unlawful for an armed citizen to be within 1,000 feet (extending out from the property lines) of a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a K–12 school. Although a state-issued carry permit may exempt a person from this restriction in the state that physically issued their permit, it does not exempt them in other states which recognize their permit under reciprocity agreements made with the issuing state.

Federal property

Some federal statutes restrict the carrying of firearms on the premises of certain federal properties such as military installations or land controlled by the USACE.^[92]

National park carry

On May 22, 2009, President Barak Obama signed H.R. 627, the "Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009," into law. The bill contained a chavandoz introduced by Senator Tom Koburn (R-OK) that prohibits the Ichki ishlar kotibi from enacting or enforcing any regulations that restrict possession of firearms in National Parks or Wildlife Refuges, as long as the person complies with laws of the state in which the unit is found.^[93] This provision was supported by the National Rifle Association and opposed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, among other organizations.^[94][95] As of February 2010 concealed handguns are for the first time legal in all but 3 of the nation's 391 national parks and wildlife refuges so long as all applicable federal, state, and local regulations are adhered to.^[96] Hawaii is a notable exception. Concealed and open carry are both illegal in Hawaii for all except retired military or law enforcement personnel. Previously firearms were allowed into parks if cased and unloaded.

Full faith and credit (CCW permits)

Attempts were made in the 110th Congress, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vakillar palatasi (H.R. 226) and the Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Senati (S. 388), to enact legislation to compel complete reciprocity for concealed carry licenses. Opponents of national reciprocity have pointed out that this legislation would effectively require states with more restrictive standards of permit issuance (e.g., training courses, safety exams, "good cause" requirements, et al.) to honor permits from states with more liberal issuance policies. Supporters have pointed out that the same situation already occurs with marriage certificates, adoption decrees and other state documents under the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.^[97] Some states have already adopted a "full faith and credit" policy treating out-of-state carry permits the same as out-of-state driver's license or marriage certificates without federal legislation mandating such a policy.^[98] In the 115th Congress, another universal reciprocity bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, was introduced by Richard Xadson. The bill passed the House but did not get a vote in the Senate.^[99]

Huquqiy muammolar

Sud qarorlari

Prior to the 1897 Supreme Court case Robertson v. Baldwin,^[100] the federal courts had been silent on the issue of concealed carry. In dikta from a maritime law case, the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the federal Ikkinchi o'zgartirish.^[101] However, in the context of such rulings, ochiq tashish of firearms was generally unrestricted in the jurisdictions in question, which provided an alternative means of "bearing" arms.

In the majority decision in the 2008 Supreme Court case of Kolumbiya okrugi va Heller, Adolat Antonin Skaliya yozgan;

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.^[102]

Heller was a landmark case because for the first time in United States history a Supreme Court decision defined the right to bear arms as constitutionally guaranteed to private citizens rather than a right restricted to "well regulated militia[s]". The Justices asserted that sensible restrictions on the right to bear arms are constitutional, however, an outright ban on a specific type of firearm, in this case handguns, was in fact unconstitutional. The Heller decision is limited because it only applies to federal enclaves such as the Kolumbiya okrugi. In 2010, the SCOTUS expanded Heller in McDonald va Chikago incorporating the 2nd Amendment through the 14th Amendment as applying to local and state laws. Various Circuit Courts have upheld their local and state laws using intermediate scrutiny. The correct standard is strict scrutiny review for all "fundamental" and "individual" rights.^[103][104] On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban enacted by the city of Chicago, Illinois, in McDonald va Chikago, effectively extending the Heller decision to states and local governments nationwide.^[105] Banning handguns in any jurisdiction has the effect of rendering invalid any licensed individual's right to carry concealed in that area except for federally exempted retired and current law enforcement officers and other government employees acting in the discharge of their official duties.

Yuridik javobgarlik

Even when self-defense is justified, there can be serious civil or criminal liabilities related to self-defense when a concealed carry permit holder brandishes or fires his/her weapon. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed, there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified.^[106][107] Some states technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. In some states, liability is present when a resident brandishes the weapon, threatens use, or exacerbates a volatile situation, or when the resident is carrying while intoxicated. It is important to note that simply pointing a firearm at any person constitutes felony assault with a deadly weapon unless circumstances validate a demonstration of force. A majority of states who allow concealed carry, however, forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Simultaneously, increased passage of "Qal'aning ta'limoti " laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to use them without first attempting to retreat. The "Castle Doctrine" typically applies to situations within the confines of one's own home.^[108] Nevertheless, many states have adopted escalation of force laws along with provisions for concealed carry. These include the necessity to first verbally warn a trespasser or lay hands on a trespasser before a shooting is justified (unless the trespasser is armed or assumed to be so). This escalation of force does not apply if the shooter reasonably believes a violent felony has been or is about to be committed on the property by the trespasser. Additionally some states have a orqaga chekinish vazifasi provision which requires a permit holder, especially in public places, to vacate him or herself from a potentially dangerous situation before resorting to deadly force. The duty to retreat does not restrictively apply in a person's home or business though escalation of force may be required. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. United States that if an individual does not provoke an assault and is residing in a place they have a right to be, then they may use considerable force against someone they reasonably believe may do them serious harm without being charged with murder or manslaughter should that person be killed.^[109] Further, in Texas^[110] and California^[111][112] homicide is justifiable solely in defense of property. In other states, lethal force is authorized only when serious harm is presumed to be imminent.

Even given these relaxed restrictions on use of force, using a handgun must still be a last resort in some jurisdictions; meaning the user must reasonably believe that nothing short of deadly force will protect the life or property at stake in a situation. Additionally, civil liabilities for errors that cause harm to others still exist, although civil immunity is provided in the Castle Doctrine laws of some states (e.g., Texas).^[113]

Penalties for carrying illegally

Criminal possession of a weapon is the unlawful egalik of a weapon by a citizen. Many societies both past and present have placed restrictions on what forms of weaponry private citizens (and to a lesser extent police) are allowed to purchase, own, and carry in public. Such crimes are public order crimes and are considered mala prohibita, in that the possession of a weapon in and of itself is not evil. Rather, the salohiyat for use in acts of unlawful violence creates a possible need to control them. Some restrictions are qat'iy javobgarlik, whereas others require some element of niyat to use the weapon for an illegal purpose. Some regulations allow a citizen to obtain a permit or other authorization to possess the weapon under certain circumstances. Lawful uses of weapons by civilians commonly include hunting, sport, collection and o'z-o'zini himoya qilish.

The penalties for carrying a firearm in an unlawful manner varies widely from state-to-state, and may range from a simple infraction punishable by a fine to a felony conviction and mandatory incarceration. An individual may also be charged and convicted of criminal charges other than unlawful possession of a firearm, such as tajovuz, tartibsizlik, tinchlikni buzish, yoki buzish. In the case of an individual with no prior criminal convictions, the state of Tennessi classifies the unlawful concealed carry of a loaded handgun as a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 30 days imprisonment and/or a $500 fine.^[114] Ichida Nyu-York shtati, a similar crime committed by an individual with no criminal convictions is classified as a Class D felony, punishable by a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years imprisonment, to a maximum of 7 years.^[115][116] As New York State does not recognize any pistol permits issued in other states, the statute would apply to any individual who does not have a valid New York State issued concealed carry permit, even if such individual has a valid permit issued in another jurisdiction.^[117] In addition, the New York State statutory definition of a "loaded firearm" differs significantly from what may be commonly understood, as simply possessing any ammunition along with a weapon capable of firing such ammunition satisfies the legal definition of a loaded firearm in New York.^[118] The large variability of state carry laws has resulted in confusing circumstances where a person in Vermont (which requires no license of any kind to carry a concealed weapon by anyone who is not prohibited by law), could unwittingly travel into the adjacent state of New York, where such individual, despite acting entirely within the law of Vermont, would then face a mandatory 3.5 year prison sentence simply for accidentally crossing the state's border into New York. These circumstances are aggravated by the fact that many NYS police departments as well as the Nyu-York shtati politsiyasi do not recognize the protections granted federally under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was intended to prevent such prosecutions.^[119]

Effect on crime and deaths

Research has had mixed results, indicating variously that right-to-carry laws have no impact on violent crime, that they increase violent crime, and that they decrease violent crime.

A comprehensive 2004 review of the existing literature by the Milliy fanlar akademiyasi found that the results of existing studies were sensitive to the specification and time period examined, and concluded that a causal link between right-to-carry laws and crime rates cannot be shown.^[120] Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius summarized literature published between 1993 and 2005, and found that ten papers suggested that permissive CCW laws reduce crime, one paper suggested they increase crime, and nine papers showed no definitive results.^[121] A 2017 review of the existing literature concluded, "Given the most recent evidence, we conclude with considerable confidence that deregulation of gun carrying over the last four decades has undermined public safety—which is to say that restricting concealed carry is one gun regulation that appears to be effective."^[122] A 2016 study in the Evropa iqtisodiy sharhi which examined the conflicting claims in the existing literature concluded that the evidence CCW either increases or decreases crime on average "seems weak"; the study's model found "some support to the law having a negative (but with a positive trend) effect on property crimes, and a small but positive (and increasing) effect on violent crimes".^[123] The Vashington Post fact-checker concluded that it could not state that CCW laws reduced crime, as the evidence was murky and in dispute.^[124] In a 2017 article in the journal Ilm-fan, Stanford University law professor John Donohue and Duke University economist Philip J. Cook write that "there is an emerging consensus that, on balance, the causal effect of deregulating concealed carry (by replacing a restrictive law with an RTC law) has been to increase violent crime".^[125] Donohue and Cook argue that the crack epidemiya made it difficult to determine the causal effects of CCW laws and that this made earlier results inconclusive; recent research does not suffer the same challenges with causality.^[125] A 2018 RAND review of the literature concluded that concealed carry either has no impact on crime or that it may increase violent crime. The review said, "We found no qualifying studies showing that concealed-carry laws decreased [violent crime]."^[126]

A 2020 study in PNAS found that right-to-carry laws were associated with higher firearm deaths.^[127] 2019 yil panel study nashr etilgan Umumiy ichki kasalliklar jurnali by medical researchers including Michael Siegel ning Boston universiteti sog'liqni saqlash maktabi va David Hemenway ning Garvard T.H. Chan jamoat salomatligi maktabi found that “shall issue" concealed carry laws were associated with a 9% increase in homicides.^[128] A 2019 study in the Amerika sog'liqni saqlash jurnali found that greater restrictions on concealed carry laws were associated with decreases in workplace homicide rates.^[129] Another 2019 study in the Amerika sog'liqni saqlash jurnali found that states with right-to-carry laws were associated with a 29% higher rate of firearm workplace homicides.^[130] A 2019 study in the Empirik huquqiy tadqiqotlar jurnali found that right-to-carry laws led to an increase in overall violent crime.^[131] 2017 yilda o'tkazilgan tadqiqotlar Amerika sog'liqni saqlash jurnali found that "shall-issue laws" (where concealed carry permits must be given if criteria are met) "are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide" than "may-issue laws" (where local law enforcement have discretion over who can get a concealed carry permit).^[132] A 2011 study found that aggravated assaults increase when concealed carry laws are adopted.^[133]

A 2019 study in Journal of American College of Surgeons found "no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime."^[134] This is also in line with a 1997 study researching county level data from 1977 to 1992 concluding that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.^[135] A 2018 study in The Review of Economics and Statistics found that the impact of right-to-carry laws was mixed and changed over time. RTC laws increased some crimes over some periods while decreasing other crimes over other periods. The study suggested that conclusions drawn in other studies are highly dependent on the time periods that are studied, the types of models that are adopted and the assumptions that are made.^[136] A 2015 study that looked at issuance rates of concealed-carry permits and changes in violent crime by county-level in four shall-issue states found no increases or decreases in violent crime rates with changes in permit issuances.^[137][138] A 2019 study in the International Review of Law and Economics found that with one method, right-to-carry laws had no impact on violent crime, but with another method led to an increase in violent crime; neither method showed that right-to-carry laws led to a reduction in crime.^[139] A 2003 study found no significant changes in violent crime rates amongst 58 Florida counties with increases of concealed-carry permits.^[140] A 2004 study found no significant association between homicide rates and shall-issue concealed carry laws.^[141]

A 2013 study of eight years of Texas data found that concealed handgun licensees were much less likely to be convicted of crimes than were nonlicensees. The same study found that licensees' convictions were more likely to be for less common crimes, "such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death."^[142] A 2020 study in Applied Economics Letters examining concealed-carry permits per capita by state found a significant negative effect on violent crime rates.^[143] A 2016 study found a significant negative effect on violent crime rates with passage of shall-issue laws.^[144] A 2017 study in Applied Economics Letters found that property crime decreased in Chicago after the implementation of the shall issue concealed carry law.^[145] 2014 yil Applied Economics Letters study found states with more permissive conceal carry laws had lower murder rates than states with restrictive laws.^[146] Another 2014 study found that RTC laws by state significantly reduce homicide rates.^[147]

In 1996, economists John R. Lott, Jr. va David B. Mustard analyzed crime data in all 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, finding counties that had shall-issue licensing laws overall saw murders decrease by 7.65 percent, rapes decrease by 5.2 percent, aggravated assaults decrease by 7 percent and robberies decrease by 2.2 percent.^[148] The study was widely disputed by numerous economists. 2004 yil Milliy fanlar akademiyasi panel reviewing the research on the subject concluded, with one dissenting panelist, that the Lott and Mustard study was unreliable.^[149] Jorjtaun universiteti Professor Jens Ludwig, Daniel Nagin ning Karnegi Mellon universiteti va Dan A. Black ning Chikago universiteti yilda The Journal of Legal Studies, said of the Lott-Mustard study, "once Florida is removed from the sample, there is no longer any detectable impact of right-to-carry laws on the rates of murder and rape".^[150]

Firearms permit holders in active shooter incidents

In 2016 FBI analyzed 40 "active shooter incidents" in 2014 and 2015 where bystanders were put in peril in on-going incidents that could be affected by police or citizen response. Six incidents were successfully ended when citizens intervened. In two stops citizens restrained the shooters, one unarmed, one with pepper spray. In two stops at schools, the shooters were confronted by teachers: one shooter disarmed, one committed suicide. In two stops citizens with firearms permits exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In a failed stop attempt, a citizen with a firearms permit was killed by the shooter.^[151] In 2018 the FBI analyzed 50 active shooter incidents in 2016 and 2017. This report focused on policies to neutralize active shooters to save lives. In 10 incidents citizens confronted an active shooter. In eight incidents the citizens stopped the shooter. Four stops involved unarmed citizens who confronted and restrained or blocked the shooter or talked the shooter into surrender. Four stops involved citizens with firearms permits: two exchanged gunfire with a shooter and two detained the shooter at gunpoint for arrest by responding police. Of the two failed stops, one involved a permit holder who exchanged gunfire with the shooter but the shooter fled and continued shooting and the other involved a permit holder who was wounded by the shooter. "Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives."^[152]

Shuningdek qarang

• American gun ownership
• Yashirin tashish
• Defensive gun use
• Qurolni boshqarish
• Qo'shma Shtatlardagi qurol siyosati
• Qurol-yarog 'to'g'risidagi qonunlarga millatlar bo'yicha umumiy nuqtai
• O'zini himoya qilish

Adabiyotlar

Tashqi havolalar

• NRA-ILA qurol qonunlariga ko'rsatma
• Qurol-yarog 'qonunlari va o'zaro javobgarlik to'g'risida juda keng qo'llanma
• Qurol haqidagi qonunlarni kuchaytirish kerakmi yoki kuchsizlantirishmi?
• Yashirin ko'chirish o'zaro xaritalari
• Yashirin olib yurish o'zaro xaritasi quruvchisi
• U. S. Yashirin tashish uyushmasi, Yashirin Carry jurnalining noshirlari