Dave Hardy reports that the requirement for removing the need for concealed carry permits in incorporated areas in Montana has been removed, and the bill remains as an ordinary castle doctrine bill.
There are activists in Pennsylvania who are exceedingly impatient about this issue, and regularly deride pro-gun politicians and pro-gun groups for not pushing it harder. Alaska/Vermont style carry, or carry without the need of a license, has been tried in New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Montana now, without success. If we can’t get Alaska/Vermont carry passed in Montana, which already has no restrictions on carry outside of towns and cities, how the hell are we passing it in Pennsylvania? Sometimes the votes just aren’t there, and yelling louder isn’t going to make it so.
The votes aren’t there for a reason: there are people who probably shouldn’t be carrying a gun but who are not actually prohibited from possessing a gun. Will such people carry a gun anyway? Most probably will still do so, and risk getting arrested. But at least a few will think twice about it. A law doesn’t have to work 100% of the time to still do some good.
“Sometimes the votes just aren’t there, and yelling louder isn’t going to make it so.”
Hmmph.. some of have been saying that for years
III
:-)
I agree with your last statement, but I think the constitution protects the ability of people to carry firearms, whether openly or concealed. I know a lot of state analogs do not protect concealed carry, but I don’t see what the public benefit is to open vs. concealed carry. An unsuitable person can do harm with either method. Even if the constitution doesn’t recognize concealed carry, if it requires at least open carry the legislature might as well offer the same respect for concealed carry.