Connect with us

Articles

Do You Still Need A Concealed Carry Permit?

Do You Still Need A Concealed Carry Permit?

Each state in the United States has its own laws governing whether it is legal to carry weapons. Open carry is permitted in some states, which means that a firearm can be carried openly if the individual meets all of the state’s requirements. Concealed carry is legal in other states. This means that a person may carry a legal weapon in their vehicle or on their person, but it must be concealed. While most people associate concealed carry with guns, these laws also cover other weapons. Pepper spray canisters weighing more than 2 ounces in Florida can only be carried by someone who has a concealed weapons permit.

All 50 states have laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. However, some states refuse to issue permits or make it extremely difficult to obtain one. Over 17 million permits were issued across the country in 2018. We will break down the permitting policies found across the country because all 50 states have laws in place. The following definitions will be useful in this article:

Shall Issue to Residents Only:
If they meet all requirements, states will issue concealed carry permits to any residents of that state.

Shall Issue to Residents and Non-Residents:
If all requirements are met, states will issue a concealed carry permit to any state resident or non-resident.

May Issue to Residents Only:
Even if all requirements are met, states have the authority to decide whether or not to issue a concealed carry permit to a state resident.

May Issue to Residents and Non-Residents:
Even if all requirements are met, states have the authority to decide whether or not to issue a concealed carry permit to state residents and non-residents.

Constitutional Carry and Shall Issue to Residents Only:
Some states have Constitutional Carry laws that allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. They will, however, issue a concealed carry permit to any resident who meets all requirements.

Constitutional Carry and Shall Issue to Residents and Non-Residents:
Some states have Constitutional Carry laws that allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit.  However, if all requirements are met, they will issue a conceal carry permit to both state residents and non-residents.

Shall Issue Permits May Issue Permits Permits Issued to Residents Only Permits Issued to Residents & Some or All Non-Residents No Permit Required OR “Constitutional Carry” Non-Resident Permit Requirements
Alabama x x x Alabama’s constitutional carry law goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2023.
Alaska x x x
Arizona x x x
Arkansas x x x
California x x Non-residents who work in the state and active-duty military stationed in the state.
Colorado x x
Connecticut x x Non-residents with a license/permit issued by a state that Georgia honors.
DC x x
Delaware x x
Florida x x
Georgia x x x
Hawaii x x
Idaho x x x
Illinois x x Residents of Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas and Virginia.
Indiana x x Non-residents with valid state license.
Iowa x x x
Kansas x x x Members of the military stationed in Kansas.
Kentucky x x x Military personnel stationed in Kentucky.
Louisiana x x
Maine x x x
Maryland x x
Massachusetts x x
Michigan x x Non-residents that are at least 21 years old and who have licenses/permits from their state of residency.
Minnesota x x
Mississippi x x x Non-residents with a valid permit from another state, active duty military stationed in Mississippi, or retired law enforcement officers establishing residency in the state are all eligible.
Missouri x x x Active military personnel or veterans over the age of 18 stationed in Missouri.
Montana x x x
Nebraska x x Military personnel and their spouses stationed in Nebraska.
Nevada x x
New Hampshire x x x
New Jersey x x
New Mexico x x Members of the military permanently stationed in New Mexico and their dependents.
New York x x Part-time residents or anyone who works or has their primary place of business in the state.
North Carolina x x Members of the military permanently posted in North Carolina.
North Dakota x x x Full-time active military duty stationed in North Dakota, as well as non-residents with a concealed carry permit from their home state that has reciprocity with North Dakota.
Adults who have been residents for at least 30 days and are not prohibited from possessing a firearm by state or federal law, as well as non-residents with a valid resident concealed carry license from a state that North Dakota recognizes..
Ohio x x x Non-residents who work in Ohio can obtain a permit.

Ohio’s constitutional carry law, signed on March 15, 2021, takes effect 91 days after the Secretary of State files it..

Oklahoma x x x Military personnel and their spouses stationed in Oklahoma only.
Oregon x x Non-residents who live in contiguous states may apply for a permit.
Pennsylvania x x Non-residents must already have a permit to carry in their home state in order to obtain a Pennsylvania license.
Rhode Island x x Non-residents that have a permit from their home state may apply for a permit through local law enforcement.
South Carolina x x Non-residents who own property in the state and military personnel stationed in South Carolina.
South Dakota x x x Members of the military and their spouses stationed in South Dakota.
Tennessee x x x Non-residents may apply for a permit if they regularly work in the state and have a valid concealed carry permit in their home state. They can only apply after working for six months and then only within six months of the initial six-month work period.
Texas x x x
Utah x x x Non-residents over the age of 21 with a permit from their home state may also apply for permits.
Vermont x Vermont does not require permits.
Virginia x x
Washington x x
West Virginia x x x
Wisconsin x x Military personnel stationed in Wisconsin.
Wyoming x x x
Continue Reading

Articles

Celebrating Trump’s Legacy: A Compelling Case for Mount Rushmore Recognition

Celebrating-Trumps-Legacy

Mount Rushmore, a symbol of American greatness, stands poised to welcome a new addition that reflects the transformative leadership of our time. As discussions about expanding this iconic monument continue, there is an indisputable case for adding Donald Trump to Mount Rushmore. 

Trump’s presidency was marked by unparalleled economic success, groundbreaking foreign policy achievements, and an unwavering commitment to prioritizing America’s interests. Recognizing his monumental legacy on this historic site is a tribute to a leader who reshaped the nation for the better.

Don’t Hesitate! Supplies Are EXTREMELY Limited! Get Your Trump Mount Rushmore GOLD Coin Today!

Donald Trump: A Legacy of Economic Triumph

Donald Trump’s economic prowess is nothing short of an extraordinary achievement that made America great again. Before the unexpected challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration orchestrated a period of unprecedented economic growth. Record-low unemployment rates, flourishing businesses, and a booming stock market underscore Trump’s dedication to fostering prosperity. Adding Trump to Mount Rushmore would immortalize a president who prioritized economic well-being and job creation for the American people.

Trump’s Diplomatic Brilliance

Trump’s administration achieved historic diplomatic breakthroughs, most notably with the groundbreaking Abraham Accords. These accords reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, fostering peace and stability in a region marred by conflict and boldly supporting the State of Israel. Trump’s visionary approach to foreign policy deserves acknowledgment on Mount Rushmore, symbolizing a commitment to fostering global harmony through innovative diplomacy.

A Strong Conservative Judicial Legacy

One of Trump’s most lasting contributions is his transformation of the federal judiciary. By appointing three Supreme Court justices and numerous federal judges, he secured a legacy that will impact the nation’s legal landscape for generations. Trump’s commitment to upholding conservative values and constitutional principles is a testament to his dedication to preserving the foundations of American governance.

Trump Mt. Rushmore Coin

Show Everyone That You’re A TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT With Your Trump Mount Rushmore GOLD Coin Today!

Unprecedented Populist Connection

Donald Trump’s presidency resonated deeply with a diverse cross-section of Americans who felt overlooked by traditional politicians. His outsider status and unapologetic “America First” approach garnered unprecedented populist support. Adding Trump to Mount Rushmore is a celebration of a leader who genuinely connected with the people, ensuring their voices were not only heard but also reflected in the highest corridors of power.

Adding Donald Trump to Mount Rushmore is an homage to a leader whose transformative impact on the nation cannot be ignored. His economic triumphs, diplomatic brilliance, judicial legacy, and unparalleled connection with the American people make a compelling case for this recognition. As the debate unfolds, it is clear that Trump’s legacy deserves a prominent place among the great leaders who have shaped the course of American history.

Continue Reading

Articles

Shocking Christmas Knife Attack: “I Want All The White People Dead”

image-photonew-york-city-ny-usa

A disturbing incident that unfolded on Christmas Day at New York City’s Grand Central Terminal, involving the alleged assailant Steven Hutcherson, highlights not only the immediate threat to public safety but also raises serious questions about the efficacy of the criminal justice system in progressive cities, especially in the face of individuals with a history of violence and explicit racial threats.

The knife attack victims were two teenage girls, aged 14 and 16.

Hutcherson, a 36-year-old Bronx resident, is accused of a vicious attack on two teenage girls at the Tartinery in the Grand Central Dining Concourse. What makes this crime particularly alarming is not only the brutal nature of the assault but also the racially charged threats Hutcherson reportedly uttered during the attack. According to witnesses, he shouted, “I want all the white people dead,” and “I want to sit next to the crackers.” This explicit expression of racial animosity adds a deeply troubling layer to an already heinous crime.

The suspect’s disturbing criminal history, marked by 17 arrests over the past two decades and more than half a dozen domestic violence complaints, paints a bleak picture. What’s even more concerning is that Hutcherson had been released back onto the streets by Judge Matthew Grieco, appointed by Mayor Eric Adams, after a previous incident in which he made explicit threats. During that encounter, Hutcherson aggressively confronted a stranger, yelling, “Why are you working for white people? I’m going to kill this man.” He went on to escalate the threats, explicitly stating his intent to shoot the victim and showing complete disregard for immigration status.

This leniency in the face of explicit racial threats and a history of violent behavior underscores the conservative argument for a tough-on-crime approach. Critics argue that a focus on progressive policies often results in an insufficient response to those who pose a clear and present danger to society. The failure to hold Hutcherson accountable earlier is not just a miscarriage of justice; it’s a failure to prioritize the safety of the community over a misguided notion of leniency.

The racial nature of the threats issued by the suspect intensifies the need for a thorough reevaluation of current criminal justice approaches. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining law and order through a robust system that ensures the safety of all citizens, regardless of their racial or ethnic background. The incident with Steven Hutcherson serves as a stark example of the consequences of deviating from a tough-on-crime stance, a stance that is crucial for deterring criminal behavior and protecting the well-being of communities. As communities grapple with rising crime rates, the case of Hutcherson highlights the urgent need for a reinvigorated commitment to public safety and a reevaluation of policies that may inadvertently compromise it.

 

Continue Reading

Articles

Two Men Win Women’s Cycling Competition in Illinois

niwot-co-usa-june-26-2016

“Tessa” Johnson and “Evelyn” Williamson, two biological men, claimed top honors in a womens’ cycling competition in Illinois. Their “victories” are part of a nationwide attack on women’s sports. This attack is fueled by radical gender ideology.

Johnson and Williamson not only won, but decisively dominated their female counterparts in the Illinois State Cyclocross Championships. This is the usual outcome when men compete with biological women. The absurd outcome led to the pair proudly stood on the podium. Kristin Chalmers, the only biological woman present came in a distant third place. To add insult to injury, Johnson secured the top spot in the women’s category 1/2 race, walking away with a $150 prize.

Johnson and Williamson: A Legacy Of Cheating

Indeed, both Johnson and Williamson have a long track record of dominating in women’s sports. With an unsettling track record of 18 first-place titles since 2017, Williamson has consistently overshadowed his female competitors. Their previous triumph in October at the Chicago Cyclocross Cup series only served to underscore the farce, relegating yet another biological female to an undeserved third position.

 

Conservative voices, rightfully outraged by this mockery of genuine competition, are speaking out. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova minced no words, rightfully pointing out the absurdity of allowing “mediocre male bodies” to dominate in female sports. Piers Morgan echoed these sentiments, condemning this blatant assault on women’s rights as an egregious offense that demands immediate rectification.

Former All-American swimmer Riley Gaines, a staunch critic of transgender women participating in women’s sports, took a commendable stand by offering financial compensation to female cyclists willing to boycott USA Cycling competitions. Gaines’s call to reject what she rightfully labels a farce resonates with those steadfast in their commitment to upholding the integrity of women’s sports.

Amidst this troubling scenario, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) deserves commendation for taking a decisive step in July by banning men from elite women’s competitions. This move, long overdue, marks a crucial step towards restoring sanity and fairness to sports.

It is high time for conservatives to not only express their disdain for the encroachment on women’s sports but also demand swift and resolute action to protect the sanctity of true competition. The sacred space of women’s sports must be shielded from distortion, and conservatives must unite to ensure accountability and fairness prevail.

Do you have any crazy stories about biological men competing in women’s sports near you? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Continue Reading

Trending