Articles with legal

7.6% of USA Adults Are Licensed to Concealed Carry Handguns

The total number of permits to concealed carry firearms in the USA is at least 19.48 million, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center report, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2020. Add in people who legally carry in the 17 Constitutional Carry states that do not require permits in all or almost all of their state (AK, AR, AZ, ID, KS, KY, ME, MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, OK, SD, VT, WV, WY) and the number clearly becomes much larger. The CPRC report also shows that the growth rate for permits by women continues to be much greater than for men; Florida is the state that has issued the most concealed carry permits at 2.14 million; and that permit holders are supremely law-abiding. All states now allow concealed carry, although permit rules vary widely between states.

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Concealed Carry Daily Prayer ]

Map showing how different states of America regulate concealed carry as of 2020

Click to enlarge this map showing how different states of America regulate concealed carry as of 2020

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps ]

‘Virtual’ Gun Rights Conference Biggest in History, Says SAF

“It was the biggest gathering of gun rights activists in the world,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), in the aftermath of the 35th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference 2020 (GRPC), held September 19-20, 2020 entirely online for the first time in history.

[ Read the SemperVerus article, The 4 Basic Rules of Gun Safety ]

The event was viewed by well over 300,000 gun rights activists across the country on multiple platforms, and more than 4,100 people pre-registered for the event, which shatters all previous records, Gottlieb reported. He said it would be impossible to get an exact count of all the people who watched because several groups held “Watch Parties” attended by many people watching the program on large screens. What’s more, he said the GRPC program, which appeared as a live Facebook event, is still being viewed, either in its entirety or in segments, which may be found by visiting the SAF website or YouTube.

Worldviews and Emotional Assumptions in the Gun Civil Rights Debate

Heated debates about law-abiding responsible American gun ownership civil rights tend to start and end as emotional arguments stemming from dug-in presupposed assumptions and predetermined worldviews, rather than inquiring open-minded attitudes that lead to acceptance of convincing proof.

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Why Do You Carry a Gun for Self-Defense? ]

Unalienable human rights, such as the Second Amendment, are based on the steadfast recognition that there are certain nonnegotiable, self-evident givens in human nature, prior to the state’s involvement, which the state is obligated to respect. Natural human rights are meant to be inviolate; incapable of being reduced to merely legal rights or privileges.

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Brief Answers for People Who Are Against the 2nd Amendment ]

A myriad of statistical analyses are already available that support how the gun civil rights position is effective in crime control, such as

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law ]

Because the facts are readily viewable online, the following chart is an attempt to help you recognize the underlying basic emotional premises from which each side approaches the subject. Once these perspectives are identified and acknowledged, perhaps feelings will subside to the facts, helping to deescalate emotional-only arguments.

Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law

The following legal decisions concern the law of self-defense. Some of the rulings are final and others are not. They’re presented here, along with salient excerpts, to be read for their excellent judicial logic about the absolute civil right of armed self-defense as established by the framers of the US Constitution.

[ Read the SemperVerus article, USA State Constitutions Providing for Armed Self-Defense ]

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling: Kim Rhode, et al., v. Bonta, Attorney General of California (July 24, 2025) by US Circuit Judge, Sandra S. Ikuta (pdf).
This ruling declares California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment.

“California’s ammunition background check regime, which requires firearm owners to complete background checks before each ammunition purchase, facially violates the Second Amendment.”

“California’s ammunition background check regime implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.”

“The Supreme Court has interpreted the text of the Second Amendment to refer to ‘bearable arms.’ Bearable arms are ‘[w]eapons of offence’ or ‘any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands,’ that is carried ‘for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.’ The term ‘arms’ encompasses commonplace weapons, as well as military weapons. The Second Amendment reaches ‘instruments that constitute bearable arms,’ regardless whether those instruments existed at the founding.”

“The Supreme Court has indicated that the Second Amendment protects ‘operable’ arms (holding that a requirement that firearms be ‘kept inoperable’ is unconstitutional). Because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.”

“A firearm is not available ‘for offensive or defensive action,’ if it is unloaded. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition. Thus, we have recognized that laws regulating ammunition fall under the ambit of the Second Amendment (concluding that ‘the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to obtain the bullets necessary to use them’).”

“We conclude that California’s ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.” * *