• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Urgent Legislative Alert 1-15-11 — Constitutional Carry

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Just 1 question, can anyone say why the new law doesn't come into effect until the 1st of July? Why not effective immediately?

Maybe because the legislators are not running forward quite as fast as some of us are.

Also I suspect to give everyone (LEOs included) the opportunity to get up to speed - training etc. and insuring ample time to get the word out. Just my thoughts.
 

t3a1s5

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
50
Location
Wyoming
Congratulations to the people of the Republic of Wyoming!!!

Just 1 question, can anyone say why the new law doesn't come into effect until the 1st of July? Why not effective immediately?

Common practice in Wyoming. July is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Many of the laws passed by the legislature go into effect on July 1. Also, I presume it gives time for LEOs to undergo training for all the new laws passed by the legislature before they have to enforce them.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Think about it... no "law" changes the way people behave. Anyone who is stupid enough to get drunk and carry a gun is not going to be influenced by any "law" against it. Let's get real.

First off, WELCOME TO THE CLUB WYOMING!! (just fix that residency flub)

Second off, I respectfully disagree with you Mama. Perhaps I shouldn't admit this, especially considering my wife lost a close friend in high school to a drunk driver, there are many occasions in my younger years where I most certainly would have driven drunk if not for;

a) the legal consequences
b) the social stigmatism
c) my understanding mother who never told me not to drink but told me to call her for a ride if I over imbibed when I was under the legal age.

There are times even now when I feel completely safe to drive after a few beers but opt not to solely because of the possibility of legal consequences. I hear old timers who talk of how they used to get drunk and then drive for fun before the laws were changed.

Laws can and do change behaviors. They may only force some behaviors in the closet but the behaviors are still modified.

Ooh, ooh. I have another example. When my mom was growing up most girls in her area were married by the time they were 13 (she was not one of them). Sex offender laws along with female opportunity (employment, etc) have changed that. While you can still get married young in some states (I have no idea what the youngest is) the laws (not the empowerment) have changed the culture to the point where it is looked down upon for a man in his 20's to look at a 16 or 17 year old girl. Arizona's age of consent is 18 if one of the parties are 18 or older.

I could go on and on and on but I won't.
 
Last edited:

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Laws can and do change behaviors. They may only force some behaviors in the closet but the behaviors are still modified.
Laws against drunk driving punish dangerous BEHAVIOR. Laws against CARRYING a firearm do not punish dangerous behavior, they punish a 100% benign act. Laws against murder, assault, reckless discharge are the laws that punish dangerous behavior.

No law is going to stop someone that is intent on dangerous behavior from carrying a firearm.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Laws against drunk driving punish dangerous BEHAVIOR. Laws against CARRYING a firearm do not punish dangerous behavior, they punish a 100% benign act. Laws against murder, assault, reckless discharge are the laws that punish dangerous behavior.

No law is going to stop someone that is intent on dangerous behavior from carrying a firearm.

My response was directed toward Mama and the comment on no law changes the way people behave. It had nothing to do with someone intent on causing violence. Please read both my comment and the the quote I referenced before trying to ascertain any meaning to what I said. I think my comment was very clear on the subject matter I was referring to. I was calling ******** on the afore mentioned poster.
 
Last edited:

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
My response was directed toward Mama and the comment on no law changes the way people behave. It had nothing to do with someone intent on causing violence. Please read both my comment and the the quote I referenced before trying to ascertain any meaning to what I said. I think my comment was very clear on the subject matter I was referring to. I was calling ******** on the afore mentioned poster.
I was going to let this drop but I can't.

You obviously do not know who MamaLiberty is. If you did, you would have a little more respect. Do some research and see if you can maybe learn something from her.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
Second off, I respectfully disagree with you Mama. Perhaps I shouldn't admit this, especially considering my wife lost a close friend in high school to a drunk driver, there are many occasions in my younger years where I most certainly would have driven drunk if not for;

It may well appear, at times, that laws might change behavior, but a little research into the known facts would show you that this is not really true. Otherwise, since there have always been "laws" against murder, theft and so forth.... if they were effective, one would think there would be no more crime by this time.

Aggressive behavior of all kinds, those things which harm people, MAY be influenced by all kinds of things, including the social pressures of the family and society around them. The "law" is certainly a part of that social environment. Individuals vary greatly in their response to such influence, but those who commit aggressive crimes are obviously less or not at all willing to submit to those influences.

The way to test this is to think of a crime, such as theft. If there were no "law" against it at all, would YOU then be tempted to commit that crime? With no "law" to provide a mechanism for capture and punishment, would you think it something you might indulge in?

Then look at it from another direction. Take the Muslim countries, for example. They have many very serious "laws" about the relationships between men and women. The penalty for breaking these laws are serious, often resulting in death. Have those laws eliminated all of that behavior among good, devout Muslims? Not in the least.

So, the law is, in most instances, simply a mechanism of society to punish those who choose to engage in proscribed behavior. It is only a small part of actually preventing such behavior since punishment can only come into play after the fact - and that only if the person can actually be caught or convicted. Do you know the actual conviction rate for violent crime in the US? Very, very poor. And yet, the number of violent crimes continues to drop. Obviously, enforcement of the law is not a key player in this. Why is that? Are people taking more responsibility for themselves and preventing crime by being aware and armed? It would seem that way.

We often say, "locks keep honest men honest." Locks, like laws, cannot deter the person who is determined to commit aggression. All of the serious "laws" that attempt to disarm everyone in Chicago, for instance, do not seem to have much influence on the criminals who prey on the innocent there... the totally disarmed innocent who obey those monstrous anti-gun and anti-self defense "laws."

We can talk about other "laws" that proscribe non-aggressive behavior another day. :)

And bless you, Kingfish. :)
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
If laws modify behavior then by the shear preponderance of them we must be nearly crime free.

The causal relationship is based on a false premise that if you tell someone not to do something they won't do it. Suspect the return investment on laws designed to prevent violent crime approaches zero. What we are left with is punishment for infractions and as layer after layer of new laws are piled up, we experience a spill over into the law abiding. We still tend to blame the tool rather than the person.

Ex: Killing someone with a gun is against the law, but not prevented by the law. Assault and battery are illegal. Use of a gun in a violent crime is also illegal. Armed robbery is generally a more heinous crime than simple robbery. Each degree of lawlessness is most often elevated when a gun is used and each "solution" brings restrictions on those not intent on committing such crimes, while contributing nothing to a reduction as intended. Laws do NOT prevent crimes - they provide the means for punishment. When the laws are perverted and/or cross a threshold into the realm of good citizens, the honest citizen doesn't suddenly have an epiphany, ""Oh, oh, I can't do that - it's illegal" - he/she already chooses to act in accordance with morality and obeys the law from the beginning.....and suffers because of it.

Keep the laws simple and clean - punish the blatant infractions and know there will always be some that will ignore the potential penalty. Punish those individuals not all of society.
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
I've been through this thread and did what I could to read up on the bill and still have a question. This doesn't change the reciprocity agreements between states, correct? As a non-resident with a WA CPL that is not recognized by the state of WY, I would still need to have a permit that WY recognizes to carry concealed?

Regardless, congratulations on the victory!
 
Last edited:

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Keep the laws simple and clean - punish the blatant infractions and know there will always be some that will ignore the potential penalty. Punish those individuals not all of society.

Agreed 100% on that statement.

0% agreed that laws do not modify behavior.
 

t3a1s5

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
50
Location
Wyoming
I've been through this thread and did what I could to read up on the bill and still have a question. This doesn't change the reciprocity agreements between states, correct? As a non-resident with a WA CPL that is not recognized by the state of WY, I would still need to have a permit that WY recognizes to carry concealed?

Regardless, congratulations on the victory!

I posted the revised law as a link on another thread. You are essentially correct. The only thing that has changed regarding who may carry concealed is that those who have been resident for at least six months may carry concealed without a permit if they meet the criteria listed in the law.

Open carry is allowed by anyone for whom it is legal to possess a firearm, and there are fewer restrictions on where you may open carry than with concealed carry.

Wyoming residents are somewhat "Wyocentric"
 
Last edited:

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
I posted the revised law as a link on another thread. You are essentially correct. The only thing that has changed regarding who may carry concealed is that those who have been resident for at least six months may carry concealed without a permit if they meet the criteria listed in the law.

Open carry is allowed by anyone for whom it is legal to possess a firearm, and there are fewer restrictions on where you may open carry than with concealed carry.

Wyoming residents are somewhat "Wyocentric"


Constitutional carry but for residents only.... Good for Wyoming but restricts the rest of us visiting.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Would hope to see this corrected next time around.

Seems to create two classes of citizens.

I remember reading somewhere that it was illegal for a state to do what WY did...just for this reason. A "supremacy" clause type of thing....but can't remember what it was now that I need it.

Thais precisely why I did not cite it. :lol:
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
Thais precisely why I did not cite it. :lol:

How about the 14th Amendment?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Top