the stainless version of the 442 pictured, and I carry the LCP. Highly recommend either for personal protection conceal carry.

I personally Carry and my wife used to deiced to stop once our daughter started moving around and now just keeps her carry gun in the bio-metric lockbox in her vehicle.

It looks like every state has/will have some form of concealed carry with the vast majority Shall issue. The next big push will be national reciprocity and you will see that included in the next gun safety bills i predict as a carrot for the RKBA side balanced by expanded universal background checks most likely.

That map however looks a lot like the map members of this group wanted banned (the animated GIf of the states carry laws)

It's clear to me they see a CCW permit as an entitlement to kill, as is evident in their defense of Zimmerman's right to murder an unarmed teenager. On one hand they push for shall issue CCW, and then they argue CCW holders are justified in killing whenever they feel spooked. Concealed carry holders have killed more than 500 people. Many spend their days thinking about taking the life of another, and they take keen interest in the Zimmerman trial because he did exactly what they want to do. The only difference between them and any other killer is their repulsive sense of entitlement. They are dangerous people who put all of our lives at risk.

So in short I despise killers and killers in waiting. That's what I think.

I hope all jurors note that your post is in the GCRA Group and it goes 6-0 to leave it alone.

Evidently background checks in Nevada failed because of my post.

Evidently all of DU is supposed to be outraged that I see no difference between Zimmerman, other CCW holders who kill, and any other killer.

while the jury was out, or what happened there?

So you were a juror on the alert? It turns out it wasn't the person I suspected. I have no idea what happened. That is strange.

Good jury. Bad alerter.

Hours later? I've seen an alert take an hour, but never much more than that.
Thanks for letting me know.

It was a unanimous vote to leave it alone.

Here is my comment: "While I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE with the post, I'm a firm believer in the poster's right to say it."

Gun grabbers suck and are stupid.

Have you filed a police report about your property being stolen?

are you paranoid?

Technically, it is no such thing.

Sheriffs in this state have the ultimate authority on issuing concealed weapons permits, and may deny a permit if they have so much as a "reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun" (CRS C.R.S. 18-12-203) regardless of whether the applicant meets the rest of the criteria under the law.

I'm unfamiliar with other states' regulations, but I would think such latitude for sheriffs would qualify as "officials have discretion," e.g. no change since 2002. This casts some doubt IMO on the remainder of the states categorized here.

Wikipedia has a chart that lists the categories of concealed carry laws in all fifty states.

The courts of the state have made it Defacto shall issue.

In practice the sheriff must show why he denied request and it must be for a disallowance offense.

So yes basically if the sherrif does not approve a person who is legally entitled that person can challenge and will be granted his ccw.

That is not may issue like CA/NY where it is up to the sherrif to grant or not grant and they may require the requester to show special need.

Can you cite a court case which has reversed the law I cited? I believe it's been on the books since 2003.

A sheriff shall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant:
Who is a legal resident of the state.
Is at least twenty-one.
Does not chronically and habitually abuse alcohol.
Demonstrates competency with a firearm.
Who is a legal resident of the state.
Is at least twenty-one.
Is not ineligible to possess a firearm, has not been convicted of perjury in relation to an application for a concealed weapon permit.
Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance as provided in federal law and regulations.
Is not subject to a restraining order in effect at the time the application is submitted, or a permanent restraining order, or a temporary restraining order in effect at the time the application is submitted.

However, the Sheriff can deny the permit if he reasonably believes that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely that the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the permit is issued.

That rejection is subject to an appeal and the sheriff must document that previous behavior and testify as to why he denied the permit.

In Colorado, the sheriff must give a specific reason and it has to convince the state licensing authority and a judge upon appeal. That is the part that makes it more shall issue. Most if not all may issue states, the licensing authority doesn't have to give a specific reason. There were fears the sheriffs would abuse the authority, but that hasn't been the case. It is probably a reasonable hybrid.

In fact if the sheriff does provide one, there are far stronger grounds for appeal, established at least once that I'm aware of.

Again, I posted the language of the law. Adding things you think ought to be in there does not make it so.

Do you realize you're quoting the law I quoted a second time, and that it still puts the decision to issue or not issue a concealed carry permit squarely on the shoulders of what a sheriff believes?

If you and your gundamentalist flock need to pretend that amounts to "shall issue" in your grand accounting, I shall sleep better knowing how little purchase you actually have on your own ground.

I understand what it says. I bolded "documented" for a reason. You, I seriously doubt it. Feel free to think whatever you want.

It's important to note that almost every single one* of the states which have become 'shall issue' CCW (or RTC 'right to carry gun' or LTC 'license') states, in the past ~25 years, had the shall issue law forced upon them, against the majority public 'will of the people'; .. those shall issue concealed carry laws were generally forced thru by republican legislatures once the political pendulum became favorable for them, & thus democrat opposition could not stop them. In the 90's public opposition was strong against shall issue ccw.
*Currently Illinois will become shall issue tomorrow july9,2013 evidently, coincidentally (& not included in above), but it's a special case to be remarked upon later.

A 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 73% of Americans disapprove of making it easier for people to legally carry concealed weapons
.. Things have changed since then, after gwbush backed into his presiduncy & became a clandestine nra board member, but carrying concealed is still viewed disfavorably as much as not: A slight majority of Americans – 52% – oppose laws that authorize the carrying of concealed weapons CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Poll,(June 28, 2008),
..1999 survey, overwhelming majority said “No,” regarding whether average citizens should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants (88%), college campuses (94%), sports stadiums (94%), bars (93%), hospitals (91%), or govt buildings (92%). http://smartgunlaws.org/polling-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/

two different Mason-Dixon polls 1995 found 62% of registered Texas voters opposed concealed firearms legislation (what TexGov Anne Richards used to proclaim 'texas did not need concealed carry', which gunlobby misrepresented as anti-rights etc).
2 A poll Louisiana found 60% registered voters opposed legislation to weaken the state’s may issue law. Mason-Dixon poll Louisiana, May6,1995.
3 Virginia, 1995 Richmond Times Dispatch poll found 56% state’s voters thought shall issue law would contribute to violence, while 28% would improve public safety.
4 1994, 48% Missouri believed allowing concealed weapons would cause crime; 14% crime would decrease.
5 1995 poll 61% Colorado residents opposed making it easier to carry concealed weapons, even if background check.
6 1994 Michigan poll 76% of Michigan adults opposed relaxing state law to make it easier to carry concealed firearm.
7 Illinois, 1995 State Police poll 73% of state voters opposed changing the may issue concealed firearm law. Press Release, Illinois State Police News, Springfield, Ill, April 13, 1995. http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/07/97007.pdf

Illinois is expected to become a shall issue ccw state tomorrow, july8,2013, in a complex political development. Illinois today (last day) prohibits any form of concealed carrying, & guncontrol advocates & most others would expect, if it were going to change it's carry policy, it would go up the next level to 'may issue', along with california, maryland, massachusetts, hawaii, new york, newjersey,RI,DC, & conn.
The rub is, to do that, for illinois to go from prohibited to may issue, would likely goad an appeal by the gun lobby to the progun (barely) supreme court on the 'constitutional validity' of may issue laws, thus threatening the may issue rules for the 8 states I listed above. Then, if a pro 2ndA decision ensues from the supreme court, would force those 8 states to ALSO adopt shall issue crap as well. It's best to wait until scotus makeup is not so stacked with progun, esp gwbush progun appointees.
So Illinois, a democrat state legislature, is between a rock & hard place, is evidently falling on it's own sword to 'protect' the other 8 states ccw policy.

To defend discretionary 'may issue' laws (Yay) guncontrol advocacy could cite these prohibitions which were written into earlier state constitutions. But I think if gunlobby can fabricate a song & dance concoction to get around the militia ruling in 1939 miller case, it has the robts court under it's thumb for more concoctions:
Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (1891).
Montana: The right of .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (1889).
Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep .. but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.(1974).
Mississippi: right of every citizen .. but legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. 1890.
Missouri: That the right .. but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.1945.
NewMexico:1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
NCarolina: A well regulated militia being .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.1971.
Okla: The right .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. 1907.
Tenn: .. but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime(1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
Texas: but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.1876
Ark: 1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
Colo:.. but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. 1876,
Flor 1885: .. but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."
Geo: .. Gen Assy shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.1877
(progunwebsite): http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

ceunupe: The next big push will be national reciprocity and you will see that included in the next gun safety bills i predict as a carrot for the RKBA side balanced by expanded universal background checks..

I hope not & doubt it, that dems will include a concealed carry national reciprocity attachment to any dem proposed gun legislation (where all states must recognize anyone carrying a valid out of state ccw permit). I suspect & hope again that obama would veto any 'national reciprocity' proposal, unless a lot of concessions from the gun lobby, like awb & supermag bans. Just to get a bg check bill passed is absurd, it would be a gunnut big victory while a pyrrhic victory for obama.
For obama to approve 'national reciprocity' at this point where gunlobby spit in his face over guncontrol, be like winston churchill saying to hitler, after conquering 'czecho', poland, denmark, holland & norway, Oh (smiley face) go ahead & invade France & Belgium, we won't do anything about it.
National ccw reciprocity would weaken may issue states like calif, maryland, new york, & 5 others & DC - only 9 'states' but about 30% of total population of USA. There is considerable leeway in adjudging violations of new york city's gun laws, as demonstrated in a previous post where two people carrying guns plead to a misdemeanor & paid a fine, is all. The laws are intended to protect against willful violations, knowingly carrying concealed in nyc. If those 2 do it again tho, katy bar the door for them.

ceu: I personally Carry and my wife used to{, decided} to stop once our daughter started moving around and now just keeps her carry gun in the bio-metric lockbox in her vehicle.

I tentatively gather your daughter is a toddler, ADVICE PUT YOUR GUNS TO SLEEP. How many guns you have ceu? MINIMIZE. Store them in a safe, or lockbox in attic, or visit a buyback. If you absolutely must have a gun for your job, if you live higher crime or money carrier, keep ONE with a hard trigger pull & keep ammo separate, take the chance you'll be able to load it quick enough when hell bent thug comes around, it's a safety alternative to offset you leaving loaded gun where your kid(s) could find it. Your wifes gun should stay there until your daughter graduates highschool, in your car's biometric lockbox.