View Full Version : Arizona passes no permit concealed carry! Starts 7/29/10.
Arizona guys better start hounding your elected officials!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31arizona.html?ref=us
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried an AR-15 rifle to a protest outside a speech by President Obama.
State Senator Russell Pearce of Arizona, left, says gun laws are only “handcuffing good people.”
Now, gun rights advocates are hoping for even fewer restrictions on where they can have a firearm. Among their top goals is to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Bills in the House and the Senate would also eliminate background checks and training classes for people to carry hidden guns.
“That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”
But supporters say criminals will carry concealed weapons regardless of the law, so gun restrictions affect only law-abiding citizens.
“All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican sponsoring the bill.
The bill comes a year after Arizona eased restrictions on gun owners, most notably giving people the option of carrying a weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol unless the establishment has banned firearms.
It also comes amid a national trend of states loosening gun laws. In 2009, states passed 47 laws easing restrictions, more than three times the number of new laws tightening them. Forty-eight states allow people to carry a concealed weapon; all but Alaska and Vermont require a permit.
In Arizona, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a misdemeanor. Mr. Pearce’s bill, and an identical one in the House, would make the permit and background check optional. It also would eliminate a required firearms safety class for permit seekers.
“It doesn’t make much sense why someone would have to go through a background check, training, etc., simply to carry their weapon,” said John Wentling, vice president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun rights lobby group that is promoting the bill.
Police departments worry that making permits optional might encourage more people with bad motives to carry concealed weapons, said John Thomas, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. It also could lead to more accidents by people not adequately trained, Mr. Thomas said.
“I’m not aware of any law enforcement agency or association that supports this bill as introduced,” he said.
House and Senate committees were scheduled to hear the bill last week, but the sponsors pulled it to try to address some of the concerns of law enforcement. A similar measure failed last year amid strong opposition from police agencies.
There would still be an advantage to obtaining a permit; carrying a gun into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol would require one, and the permit would be valid in some other states. Permit holders can also buy new guns without a background check.
In all, Arizona lawmakers have introduced about a half-dozen bills aimed at loosening gun laws, including one making it legal to carry a gun in a public park without a concealed-weapons permit. Another would allow college faculty members with permits to carry a gun on campus.
The gun rights bills follow a string of new, less-restrictive gun laws passed last year. They were helped make possible by the elevation of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, to replace Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who vetoed efforts to loosen gun laws until she resigned a year ago to join the Obama administration.
Ms. Brewer last year signed the bill allowing guns in bars; Ms. Napolitano vetoed a similar measure four years earlier.
Ms. Brewer also approved a law allowing gun owners to display a firearm if they feel threatened and another allowing them to keep guns in their locked vehicles while parked at businesses that ban weapons.
geminidglocker
02-02-10, 14:49
Good for them! If we all had the same gun rights that I enjoy here in Vermont, the country would be a lot safer.:)
Good for them! If we all had the same gun rights that I enjoy here in Vermont, the country would be a lot safer.:)
I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!!!!!
“That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”
Why do these people never learn that criminals already carry guns??
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/02/03/20100203weaponbills0203.html Thanks 3CTactical!
Arizona has always held tightly to its legacy as part of the gun-toting Wild West and a protector of individual rights.
This year, the state's Republican governor and a conservative Legislature may continue that tradition by giving Arizonans some of the least-restrictive weapons laws in the nation.
This session, state lawmakers have proposed more than a dozen bills on expanding rights to carry and use guns and knives.
The proposed laws would allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, end requirements that guns manufactured and kept in Arizona be registered, and allow university professors to carry guns on school grounds.
Although the number of bills on the subject is not unusual, weapons-rights supporters believe this year - with a conservative governor, a Legislature sympathetic to their cause and more freedom to address issues other than the budget - may be their year to lift many limits. It also is an election year, and gun rights have always been a popular campaign platform among conservatives.
"Arizona is very gun-friendly, and we've made a lot of progress over the past probably 10 to 12 years," weapons-rights lobbyist Todd Rathner said. "But, right now, the Legislature and the governor are favorable to a pro-Second Amendment agenda, so we're trying to accomplish as much as we can."
Weapons advocates are so optimistic about their chances this year that a knife-rights advocacy group hopes to use Arizona to launch a national effort to give state Legislatures exclusive authority over local governments to regulate knife use.
The efforts won't be without opposition.
Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said some of the legislative efforts could hurt the state economically.
"These laws are not going to be seen as friendly to business, friendly to children and good for the economy of Arizona," she said. "This is a very critical time, and we are turning people away from Arizona, making them more fearful of coming to the Wild West."
Gun-friendly state
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.
In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer became governor. Lawmakers quickly proposed weapons legislation, and Brewer began signing it.
During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.
Brewer has been a supporter of Second Amendment rights over her elected career, spokesman Paul Senseman said. He said having her as governor has helped the effort in the state over the past year.
"I think last year was very productive in terms of extending the protections of the Second Amendment," Senseman said.
Brewer would not comment on specific legislation before it reached her desk.
"But it will be important that we continue to be judicious and responsible in enacting good protections for our Second Amendment rights," he said.
Testing ground
Rathner said Arizona's current political atmosphere is precisely why Knife Rights Inc. chose this time and this state to propose a bill that would pre-empt local governments from regulating knives.
Rathner for years represented the National Rifle Association in Arizona, but this year, he is lobbying for the national knife-owner advocacy group. Knife Rights, which Rathner said has a few thousand members nationwide, is based in Gilbert and was started in 2006.
"Guns have been pre-emptive for a decade, and there's been no problem with it," he said. "Knives are the next step."
Rathner said about 10 Arizona cities restrict knives, including Phoenix. Phoenix outlaws carrying knives, except for pocketknives. If the bill becomes law, Phoenix's ordinance would no longer be enforceable.
If successful, Rathner said, the group will push other states to pass the law.
Several Arizona cities oppose the bill, including Phoenix.
The Legislature
The gun measure likely to draw the biggest buzz proposes to no longer require people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill. He said his bill simply puts into law what Arizona and the nation's founders always intended.
"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have a right to carry," Pearce said.
Whether they support the bills or not, legislators agree on one thing: Many of the bills have a good chance of becoming law.
Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he has owned guns most of his life. He said that changing the concealed-weapon permit law moves Arizona in the wrong direction but that his opinion may not matter.
"If the Republicans want to push this through, we can't stop it. They run the Legislature, they run the Governor's Office," he said. "I'm not sure the general public wants to go back to the day when people could walk into any saloon with a firearm strapped to their hip, but it seems like the majority party does."
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, warned that nothing is a sure thing in the Legislature, particularly this year.
"The budget is casting such a gloomy cloud over everything that it's hard to get a read," he said.
However, Republican House Majority Leader Chuck Gray said Second Amendment rights also are a priority.
"Most of the gun issues are going to be looked at to make sure they are written correctly, but we will be very favorable toward the rights of the people," Gray said.
The largest hurdle these bills face this year, as in past years, is likely opposition from law-enforcement groups. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes Pearce's bill.
"If enacted, (the bill) will take Arizona back to Wild West carry, with no consideration for officer safety," association lobbyist John Thomas said.
Only nine states have fewer gun restrictions than Arizona, according to a scorecard released last year by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-restriction advocacy group.
If some of the legislation is passed, Arizona will likely move lower on the list.
"You have no laws meant to reduce gun violence and protect the public, and you have an active gun lobby there that wants to do away with even the bare threshold of laws you do have," said Ladd Everitt of the Washington, D.C.-based national Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a permit and the other to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third state in the nation to allow either of the looser restrictions.
Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit "crazy."
"You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public," he said.
Pearce said he thinks the legislation will help make Arizonans safer.
"When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."
woodandsteel
02-03-10, 10:35
"Arizona is very gun-friendly, and we've made a lot of progress over the past probably 10 to 12 years," weapons-rights lobbyist Todd Rathner said. "But, right now, the Legislature and the governor are favorable to a pro-Second Amendment agenda, so we're trying to accomplish as much as we can."
"When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."
I would really love to retire and move to Arizona.
Only about 20 more years to go:)
I would really love to retire and move to Arizona.
Only about 20 more years to go:)
I'm looking at moving there within the next few years. If this passes and they get a Vermont style CCW I'll be moving there ASAP. Hopefully this'll trigger a landslide of positive legislation.
“That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”
Why do these people never learn that criminals already carry guns??
like criminals with felony records can buy guns anyway ?
OH I know they break into the nice guys house and steal them !!!!!
I guess they never learn cause its like telling your dog not lick and sniff other dogs privates they just dont listen !!!!!
Apu: "Where's a gun-toting lowlife when you need one?"
Snake: "Sorry, I was in the can."
Apu: "Where's a gun-toting lowlife when you need one?"
Snake: "Sorry, I was in the can."
Had to Google that... the Simpsons are great :cool:
My feelings are mixed on the elimination of certification for concealed carry. For the sake of context, I am a sixth generation Arizonan, basically lifelong gun owner and a CCW holder who carries daily. I am proud of AZ's long history of supportive gun legislation. So what is my problem??
Education. Carrying concealed in public comes with some heavy responsibilities that affect us all, as I assume most everyone on this site would agree. There are many details with regard to justification for a shoot, consideration of the safety of others in the area, (including LEO responding to the situation), basic safe handling of a firearm under duress etc that are not necessarily given to common knowledge, especially for new or first time gun owners. So where and how does the average new shooter get this valuable information to carry responsibly and safely if not from their CCW certification class? I have 35 years of gun ownership and shooting experience and still learned a lot from the class. Some of it I remind myself of daily as I go about my business with pistol in tow. It's nice to think that anyone who chooses to carry in public would take the time to learn and practice these responsible skills, but I doubt that would be the norm.
When I did my CCW cert about half of the participants in the class had never shot a gun before in their lives. Some had borrowed a pistol for the class and a few had bought a new pistol for the class. I'm not exaggerating one single bit when I tell you that the instructors had to literally show them how to load rounds into the magazine and then insert the mag into the weapon. These folks had no clue about trigger or muzzle discipline and there were several of us who stepped back from the line a time or two because of the loose nature of their gun handling. The instructors were very patient but somewhat short-handed for the given task and time-constraints. Some of us even stayed over time into the dark in order to teach these folks the most basic of safety practices and to help them as they tried to get rounds on paper from 7 feet away. My hat was and is off to the instructors for their commitment to public safety. However the idea of these folks indiscriminately carrying in public makes me want to don armor! Now envision them without the benefit of experienced instruction...
I applaud anyone who wants to arm and protect themselves from the predatory slime out there. At the same time, I do think that there needs to be an education that precedes public carry and potential display of a lethal weapon in that public arena. For those of us that have been learned and have grown up with safe handling practices this may be a non-issue, but from my experience true seasoned shooters represent a minority of the current gun owning public. I think that there does need to be some training/certification that is required if you want to shoulder the responsibility of public carry... and I encourage every law abiding citizen to get that training/cert.
Probably not a popular opinion but that is how I feel about it. :cool:
That's it, I'm moving. I was back and forth on whether I could stand the heat of AZ, but this makes it easier.
Probably not a popular opinion but that is how I feel about it. :cool:
I actually think your views are shared by many (though I disagree & would prefer the entire US have "Vermont" style carry laws).
I grew up in MD where permits are virtually NEVER granted. I have asked many Marylanders 2 questions:
I first ask: 1) Would they like Maryland to adopt "shall issue" as have many states? The answer is always "YES!"
Then, I explain to them just how easy it was to get my CCW permit in VA (here, you can simply present your military discharge document, or take an online course, or present the course cert from a 4 hour NRA basic pistol class I took in New York with no range requirement). We do not have specific requirements as to what qualifies as "training." It CAN be quite simple/short.
2) I then ask: would they want MD to adopt the same "shall issue" law as VA??
At this point, most of them do NOT feel comfortable with, as they put it: "making it THAT easy to carry." Their rational is that more training is required. Since they do not have any experience with concealled carry, they have no basis for understanding what works, and what does not. I believe Vermont's system works just fine, and I'm not too bothered by VA either. My Maryland friends, however, seem horrified by the prospect of Vermont's laws coming to MD. And these are gunowners!
And I agree that more training IS required. It is not possible to over-train when trainign to protect the lives of your family or yourself. I only object to letting the STATE decide that issue over the individual citizen deciding for her/himself.
Were those folks in your class unprepared? Perhaps, but they still own guns. If we are, as a nation, going to recognize people's rights to own guns, we ought to recognize their right to carry - with all that brings with it. The answer is get more folks to learn basic safety & train. Governemnt restrictions are not the answer.
Thank you for sharing your views. Good discussion.
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." - SCOTUS, Dred Scott decision
At least the courts knew what rights they were screwing people out of back then, instead of pretending they didn't exist.
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." - SCOTUS, Dred Scott decision
At least the courts knew what rights they were screwing people out of back then, instead of pretending they didn't exist.
Great quote!
Buckaroo
good points and agree
I think its tough I take driving seriously my dad used to race cars I raced MX and had a factory ride was in the nationals etc... I also did road racing and grew up in a hardcore car family
yet many get a license and still cant drive and cars kill a ton of people way more than guns ? I am more afraid of getting in a accident here then shot by someone
not justifying just saying :) there are those that will take the class and not remember anything and not care a few hours wont stick in their heads if they have the give me my permit get done with this !!!!
or those that take it serious and will want to learn more
I agree its a slippery slope or double edge sword for sure about more people carrying ?
I try to think education is the key thing but sadly some dont want it dont care as they are smarter than all us and those are the ones like you said that might make things backfire ? on us good folks
but I also wish to get a car license we would all have to take a really strong test and really know how to drive and have to get re-qualified every ten years or something ? but that wont happen
like you I have mixed feelings and posts like yours or others saying make it free make me keep thinking more ;)
My feelings are mixed on the elimination of certification for concealed carry. For the sake of context, I am a sixth generation Arizonan, basically lifelong gun owner and a CCW holder who carries daily. I am proud of AZ's long history of supportive gun legislation. So what is my problem??
Education. Carrying concealed in public comes with some heavy responsibilities that affect us all, as I assume most everyone on this site would agree. There are many details with regard to justification for a shoot, consideration of the safety of others in the area, (including LEO responding to the situation), basic safe handling of a firearm under duress etc that are not necessarily given to common knowledge, especially for new or first time gun owners. So where and how does the average new shooter get this valuable information to carry responsibly and safely if not from their CCW certification class? I have 35 years of gun ownership and shooting experience and still learned a lot from the class. Some of it I remind myself of daily as I go about my business with pistol in tow. It's nice to think that anyone who chooses to carry in public would take the time to learn and practice these responsible skills, but I doubt that would be the norm.
When I did my CCW cert about half of the participants in the class had never shot a gun before in their lives. Some had borrowed a pistol for the class and a few had bought a new pistol for the class. I'm not exaggerating one single bit when I tell you that the instructors had to literally show them how to load rounds into the magazine and then insert the mag into the weapon. These folks had no clue about trigger or muzzle discipline and there were several of us who stepped back from the line a time or two because of the loose nature of their gun handling. The instructors were very patient but somewhat short-handed for the given task and time-constraints. Some of us even stayed over time into the dark in order to teach these folks the most basic of safety practices and to help them as they tried to get rounds on paper from 7 feet away. My hat was and is off to the instructors for their commitment to public safety. However the idea of these folks indiscriminately carrying in public makes me want to don armor! Now envision them without the benefit of experienced instruction...
I applaud anyone who wants to arm and protect themselves from the predatory slime out there. At the same time, I do think that there needs to be an education that precedes public carry and potential display of a lethal weapon in that public arena. For those of us that have been learned and have grown up with safe handling practices this may be a non-issue, but from my experience true seasoned shooters represent a minority of the current gun owning public. I think that there does need to be some training/certification that is required if you want to shoulder the responsibility of public carry... and I encourage every law abiding citizen to get that training/cert.
Probably not a popular opinion but that is how I feel about it. :cool:
AZ News video on the subject: http://www.azcentral.com/video/64575047001
http://www.azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_4b5d4e68-1dc1-5f16-b868-72461b6df370.html
Who knew that state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican, had such disregard for the principle of local control?
But when it comes to guns, Pearce and most of his GOP colleagues in the Senate know better than local police, university officials and elected city councils. The fewer regulations and the more law-abiding citizens who carry loaded weapons, the better -- end of discussion.
If Pearce were equally committed to the same stiff prison terms for using a gun in a crime as he is for using drugs or using an undocumented alien to mow your lawn, then his "open carry" philosophy might seem at least consistent. After all, law-abiding citizens should have nothing to fear from penalties for criminal gun use, should they?
But Pearce and his allies aren't willing to go down that road -- draconian penalties, he has told Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, would entrap legal gun owners and discourage them from toting a gun.
The idea is that if everyone is armed, criminals will be less inclined to use guns for fear of being gunned down themselves.
So the Senate has passed Pearce's bill that allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon -- no background checks or training required. Ironically, the bill includes an unfriendly amendment that requires proof of citizenship to buy a gun at an unregulated gun show -- just like the proof Pearce wants from someone seeking a job along the roadside. Pearce has vowed to fight the requirement at gun shows as unnecessary and intrusive, even though it applies to all federally licensed gun dealers.
One state without concealed carry requirements, Alaska, at least requires the gun toter to notify an approaching police officer that he is armed.
Pearce called the notification clause just another "trap" for law-abiding citizens.
POLICE STRENUOUSLY OBJECT
Local police have testified strenuously against the bill. If citizens are going to be armed, at least have them trained in how and when to shoot a gun, they say. That way, police can know that when they respond to an incident of violence, the only people with guns will either be vetted and trained in how to use one or a criminal.
Further, say police and researchers, most situations involving violence stem from domestic disputes and arguments involving alcohol between people who know each other. Neither party in these types of cases should have guns. And they certainly shouldn't have them unless there are severe penalties for misusing them -- penalties, as noted above, that aren't on the books in Arizona.
As for prosecutors, they note that now that the burden in Arizona is on them to prove that the shooter was not acting in self-defense, there is all the more reason for the shooter not to leave any victims as living witnesses.
Meanwhile, the state budget for the current year is still out of whack, and next year the hole is even bigger. Does Pearce really think that increasing the possibility of felons carrying concealed weapons undetected and with impunity is more important than balancing the state budget?
PROFESSORS BECOME TARGETS
Apparently Pearce did not get the word out to his Senate colleagues that he is pushing to eliminate the concealed carry permit and training system. One of them, Sen. Jack Harper, has been busy crafting a bill to force universities to let faculty members with permits carry concealed weapons -- the better, apparently, to fend off attacking intruders.
The result, however, is likely to be less safety for the instructor, not more. A gunman bent on killing people will go first for the one person likely to get in his way. And if the killer has already selected her targets, as occurred recently during a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama, the element of surprise combined with a semiautomatic will trump the ability of most professors to get off even a single shot.
What makes the imposition of Harper's proposal on a college campus seem so onerous is the assault it represents on the very notion of the academy and the host community that supports it. Universities are committed to the pursuit of knowledge for the common good, a malleable concept reached largely by melding individual rights onto broader community goals. It's about interdependence and resolving disputes through negotiation and compromise, not deterrence based on the threat of violence. It's also about teaching the responsibilities that come with rights, a lesson that Second Amendment zealots appear to have missed.
RIGHT TO BEAR MUZZLE-LOADERS
Falling back on the supposed absolutes found in the Bill of Rights might sound simpler -- if we all lived in the late-18th century. But the right to bear arms in public referred to muzzle-loaders taken up in defense of country. How that applies to carrying high-powered rifles down the streets of crowded, 21st-century cities is known mainly to the NRA and few others.
Granted, there are bad guys in the world with a litany of complaints about injustice and inequity who are prepared to use lethal force to settle their scores. We defend ourselves and our country against the tyranny of such hatred and violence with armies and homeland security forces.
Likewise, those criminals among us with their own set of anti-social grievances need to know there are highly-trained police agencies prepared to catch them and a justice system ready to put them away for a long time if they use guns. The latter, however, won't be accomplished as long as the Second Amendment continues to be defended with absolutist nonsense. And arming a bunch of amateur civilians in place of passing gun laws with teeth sends up the white flag of surrender in the battle for a civil society governed by laws, not force.
dookie1481
03-01-10, 13:03
Irish, whoever wrote that last article is a ****ing idiot.
Jay
Irish, whoever wrote that last article is a ****ing idiot.
Jay
I don't always agree with everything that's written in an article I post. Sometimes I do it to show the other sides opinion and other times it's to bump the thread back up to the top and show the progress of the bill, which is the case here. Have a good day.
dookie1481
03-03-10, 00:44
I don't always agree with everything that's written in an article I post. Sometimes I do it to show the other sides opinion and other times it's to bump the thread back up to the top and show the progress of the bill, which is the case here. Have a good day.
Oh I know, not a comment on you, just what I gleaned from the article.
Jay
Indiana has shall-issue concealed carry licensing with zero training requirements. All you have to do is pass the background check, pay the fees, get fingerprinted, and you get your license.
We can carry in restaurants and bars too, no restrictions. Still can't carry in schools, but you can carry in your car to and from a school for the purposes of dropping off and picking up your kids (and ONLY that purpose).
Indiana also has one of the highest percentages of concealed carry permit holders in the country - almost 10% of the population I think.
Guess what? It simply is NOT a problem. We don't have permit holders getting drunk in bars and shooting each other over pool games. We don't have untrained shooters having ND's all over the place.
All of the arguments in favor of the various restrictions on concealed carry are based on what-ifs. How about basing our decisions on actual experience?
Now, I'm not sure about unlicensed carry, but Vermont doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it, so I'm not sure why people think it would be a big problem elsewhere.
You could waste a crap load of money licensing and regulating, or you could spend zero and have even less crime. It's like drugs, at some point you have to realize you could spend next to nothing and still have the exact same number of adults tweaking. I take a moderate stance on gun laws, all gun laws are illegal, always. No free citizen is forced to carry a gun and nobody denied that right, middle of the road.
Indiana has shall-issue concealed carry licensing with zero training requirements. All you have to do is pass the background check, pay the fees, get fingerprinted, and you get your license.
Get treated like a criminal, pay your tax, get treated like a criminal and then get your permission slip. That's what I got out of all of that, way different than Vermont or Alaska and what Arizona's trying to accomplish.
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2010/03/21/news/state/doc4ba5d370de5bc867729249.txt
PHOENIX (AP) — Gun-rights activists say Arizona legislation to allow carrying of concealed weapons without a permit say it should be ready for Senate consideration early in the coming week.
House and Senate bills were scheduled to be considered Thursday but action was postponed.
Supporters say that was so minor changes can be made to provisions unrelated to the repeal of criminal penalties for not having a permit while carrying a concealed weapon.
Their plan is to have the Senate bill revised and approved, and then to have the House match and approve the Senate version.
If the bill becomes law, Arizona would be the third state behind Alaska and Vermont to not require permits for concealed weapons.
Guess I'll have to move a little further south :)
arizonaranchman
03-24-10, 13:16
Left Sig,
"Guess what? It simply is NOT a problem. We don't have permit holders getting drunk in bars and shooting each other over pool games. We don't have untrained shooters having ND's all over the place.
All of the arguments in favor of the various restrictions on concealed carry are based on what-ifs. How about basing our decisions on actual experience?"
____________________________________________________________________
Exactly right. You simply DON'T hear of these gunfights over parking spaces, etc that the frantic liberals always predict. NOTHING. And believe me if ANY tiny little incident happened in these states you'd NEVER hear the end of the reporting from the communist left in support of their frantic predictions of blood in the streets. It's a total NON-ISSUE as evidenced by the complete lack of any reporting on it. Just the usual thugs shooting and robbing each other that has always occurred.
Crooks are cowards. They won't mess with you if they think there's even the slightest chance you'll have a weapon or will stand up to them.
Ranchman - It's much easier to read your posts if you use the QUOTE button in the lower right rather than copying & pasting their text. ;)
arizonaranchman
03-24-10, 13:50
Ranchman - It's much easier to read your posts if you use the QUOTE button in the lower right rather than copying & pasting their text. ;)
OK irish... With an Avatar like that I can't argue with you :D
My only response is that no where in the 2nd amendment does it state that either a background check or education is required. Vermont has it righ and it looks like Arizona is working on it.
Card carrying AZ CCW here, and I had the exact same experience in my class as above. I watched two people get thrown out of the course because they muzzled everyone on the line. One girl started frantically crying and swinging her revolver around when she couldn't hit the target. One guy, friend actually, failed to get 7 shots on the chest sized target at 7 yards. He got 5 chances and the instructor finally gave him a pass because he was out of ammo. Good times.
I don't care for unlicensed concealed carry myself, mainly from a law enforcement perspective. I come from a family of LEO and have seen the silly shit they go through every day. Once licensed however, all bets should be off on where and how you carry on your person and in any vehicle you occupy. Shall-issue only and easy/expedited processing should be the law of the land. There's the only common-sense laws you need right there.
I don't care for unlicensed concealed carry myself, mainly from a law enforcement perspective. I come from a family of LEO and have seen the silly shit they go through every day. Once licensed however, all bets should be off on where and how you carry on your person and in any vehicle you occupy. Shall-issue only and easy/expedited processing should be the law of the land. There's the only common-sense laws you need right there.
Shall-issue carry permits are nothing more than a tax on what is supposed to be a right. How about having no permit needed for law abiding citizens, but maintain a law against carry for felons, fugitives, illegals, etc.?
That way any criminal caught with a concealed weapon is still breaking the law. Not for carrying without a license, but for carrying while being a criminal.
Pass a million laws banning carry for criminals if you want, they will still ignore them all like they do now. Just actually enforce the law when they get caught.
arizonaranchman
03-24-10, 18:15
Shall-issue carry permits are nothing more than a tax on what is supposed to be a right. How about having no permit needed for law abiding citizens, but maintain a law against carry for felons, fugitives, illegals, etc.?
That way any criminal caught with a concealed weapon is still breaking the law. Not for carrying without a license, but for carrying while being a criminal.
Pass a million laws banning carry for criminals if you want, they will still ignore them all like they do now. Just actually enforce the law when they get caught.
Outstanding suggestion Left Sig!
Chris Rhines
03-24-10, 18:56
The biggest problem with mandated training is the opportunity for rent-seeking by opportunistic scumbags. (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/03/12/insight-firearms-training-opposing-constitutional-carry/)
-C
Shall-issue carry permits are nothing more than a tax on what is supposed to be a right. How about having no permit needed for law abiding citizens, but maintain a law against carry for felons, fugitives, illegals, etc.?
That way any criminal caught with a concealed weapon is still breaking the law. Not for carrying without a license, but for carrying while being a criminal.
Pass a million laws banning carry for criminals if you want, they will still ignore them all like they do now. Just actually enforce the law when they get caught.
Nicely stated. Well done. :thumbsup:
Was looking to do an AZ CCW course some time this year. Guess I'll just wait a little bit and save my $$$ for some real training at Gunsite.
That's it, I'm moving. I was back and forth on whether I could stand the heat of AZ, but this makes it easier.
It's not that bad. Everything is heavily air-conditioned, so you only experience it walking to and from your car. Unless you are a dumbass like me and actually walk places or use public transport.
Shall-issue carry permits are nothing more than a tax on what is supposed to be a right. How about having no permit needed for law abiding citizens, but maintain a law against carry for felons, fugitives, illegals, etc.?
That way any criminal caught with a concealed weapon is still breaking the law. Not for carrying without a license, but for carrying while being a criminal.
Pass a million laws banning carry for criminals if you want, they will still ignore them all like they do now. Just actually enforce the law when they get caught.
Nailed it.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/03/25/20100325arizona-concealed-weapons-bill.html
Proposed legislation that would make Arizona the third state in the nation to allow adults to carry concealed guns without permits may be the first of the dozen or so weapons-related bills proposed this session to hit the governor's desk.
Lawmakers have amended Senate Bill 1108 and House Bill 2347 so they consist of identical language that would, among other things, eliminate the requirement for concealed-carry weapon permits for U.S. citizens 21 and older.
The Senate bill, crafted by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, was approved Tuesday by the Senate Committee of the Whole and now awaits a vote by the full Senate. The House bill, sponsored by Jim Weiers, R-Glendale, is on the agenda for a vote by the House Committee of the Whole today.
"If you want to carry concealed, and you have no criminal history, you are a good guy, you can do it," Pearce said of his bill. "It's a freedom that poses no threat to the public." This guy gets my vote!
If approved by the Senate, Pearce said his bill will then be substituted for the House bill for a vote by the full House. Because the bills are identical, it can then go directly to the governor.
Only nine states have fewer gun restrictions than Arizona, according to a scorecard released last year by gun-restriction advocates the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Currently, only Vermont and Alaska do not require concealed-carry weapons permits.
Arizona had 153,209 active permits as of March 21. Permit holders are spread across all ages, races and counties, but White males older than 30 in Maricopa and Pima counties hold the majority, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
In 2008, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit. Gun-rights supporters say their efforts this session will be more successful under Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.
Gun-rights advocates and opponents have voiced concerns about different aspects of the bill.
Several Democrats noted that eliminating the permit requirement also means Arizonans would no longer have to take training classes to carry concealed guns.
Rep. Daniel Patterson, D-Tucson, said he owns guns and is pro-Second Amendment.
"If you don't know how to use that weapon well, it could easily be taken away from you, and you could be killed with your own gun," Patterson said.
In order to buy a gun, individuals would still need to pass a background check.
Several tweaks have been made to the proposed legislation to address other concerns, particularly from law enforcement. It would now require individuals carrying a concealed gun to notify a law-enforcement officer that they are carrying if they are pulled over for a traffic stop. It also would allow the officer to take temporary custody of the gun during a stop.
"We have reworded it to make it a good balance on freedom and still being tough on the bad guys," Pearce said.
The changes prompted the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police to drop its opposition to the bill. The organization's president, Sahuarita Police Chief John Harris, said the chiefs saw the bill was going to pass anyway so they wanted to ensure it was as favorable as possible.
woodandsteel
03-25-10, 12:48
This is great news!
I would love to see my state go to something like this. But, I am happy to see that we may at least enter the "shall issue" column here soon.
On another note, Illinois of all places is looking at finally allowing ccw permits. I was listening to a radio program last night, and a caller said that they were within a handful of votes of getting concealed carry passed there.
http://www.myjournalcourier.com/articles/carry-25846-concealed-illinois.html
Illinois' proposed law, is not a perfect law. But, it is something I would never had expected from that state.
And there was much rejoicing.
Magic_Salad0892
03-25-10, 16:16
I very much like the idea of not getting background checked after getting your CCP.
Though I think there should at least be a background check when applying to get a permit, and when buying a gun (without a CCP) you should be checked. Other than that free game.
Two other things:
Make ownership of handguns legal at 18.
Get rid of SBR, and Suppressor regulations.
That's another topic for another day though.
I'm somewhat torn on this. Like some others in this thread, I saw some truly scary stuff in both my initial 16-hour class (at Gunsite, no less) and the 4-hour 'refresher' class. One woman jammed her P232 and did a 180, sweeping half the range, to ask the instructor what to do. Turns out she'd bought the gun the day before, and had never lubricated it because she didn't know it was necessary. Another guy shot his crappy Taurus PT-92 clone with his strong hand on the grip, and the dust cover lying on the palm of his support hand like it was some kind of rifle. Several folks told him he was going to blow his hand off one day, but he didn't seem to care. Then there were the barely-21 kids from the community college who kept asking the instructor "So when do I get to legally pop a cap in someone's ass?". That's just at the initial class. The refresher class had people who were incapable of HITTING THE SILHOUETTE TARGET AT 7 YARDS. You know what? Everyone, in both classes, got passed. Carrying a firearm in public is a fundamental constitutional right. It's also a heady responsibility, and one which requires extensive training and experience. These tards lacked it utterly.
In a perfect world, people who take up this responsibility will also get and maintain training. But this is far from a perfect world. I'd like to see people get at least the bare minimum of training that a CCW class entails. At least that exposes them to people who know more than they saw in the last Stallone flick. AZ's shall-issue law is not onerous. Go to a 4-hour class, put 10 rounds on target @ 7 yards, and you're good to go. An anti-gun LE official can't deny you a permit like they can in California or New York. As long as you're not prohibited from owning a gun, and have a rudimentary proficiency, you're guaranteed the legal ability to carry concealed. If you choose not to do this, anyone can carry openly without a permit. I'd rather see more places open to licensed carry than doing away with licensing altogether. I still can't carry to my son's school when he's old enough to go, for instance.
I also worry about reciprocity. Right now, my Arizona permit lets me carry in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania when I go home to visit, as well as several other states. Vermont doesn't have reciprocity with anyone because they don't issue a permit. Alaska still has permits for out-of-state reciprocity, they just don't require one to carry concealed in state. I hope this is the route Arizona is taking.
Finally, having a permit makes buying guns a lot easier. Instead of waiting for the feds to do a background check, or having to put my SSN down on the 4473, I just hand the dealer my permit along with my license and I'm good to go.
Just my $.02.
I very much like the idea of not getting background checked after getting your CCP.
Though I think there should at least be a background check when applying to get a permit, and when buying a gun you should be checked. Other than that free game.
In the same way there should be a background check and permit for you to exercise your 1st Amendment rights and be typing on the internet?
The point of this thread is to do away with having to obtain a permit, read permission, to exercise your Constitutional right as an American.
As I have said before, Indiana has no exam for a carry permit, just pay the fee, get printed, and wait for the background check to clear.
We have almost 10% of the state population with permits. And again, we don't have problems with permit holders causing mayhem due to incompetence. Just because they might, doesn't mean they actually do. I see lots of stupid drivers and they all have licenses. The test described above is worthless because everyone passed even if they couldn't do it. That's just a waste of time and money.
When are we going to stop talking about what might be and simply look at the actual results in states with no-license carry like Vermont and Alaska? And also no-exam shall issue like Indiana? Are we so obsessed with our own ideas and biases that we will simply ignore decades of actual experience in these states? That's the kind of thinking that we expect from the far left - based on conjecture and theory and not based on evidence.
As I have said before, Indiana has no exam for a carry permit, just pay the fee, get printed, and wait for the background check to clear.
Pay a tax, get treated like a criminal and then possibly die while you're waiting for the government to grant you permission to exercise your God given right to protect yourself. Registration leads to confiscation and getting a permit does register you with the government as being a weapon owner & carrier. Police in NV, I know for a fact, can see this on their computer when they pull you over. EDIT: This statement isn't intended to be anti-LEO and I would advise an LEO anyway, my point is the fact that plenty of other government people have access to your info as well.
When are we going to stop talking about what might be and simply look at the actual results in states with no-license carry like Vermont and Alaska? And also no-exam shall issue like Indiana? Are we so obsessed with our own ideas and biases that we will simply ignore decades of actual experience in these states? That's the kind of thinking that we expect from the far left - based on conjecture and theory and not based on evidence.
Well said, but drop the brown sentence. ;)
woodandsteel
03-26-10, 00:08
Pay a tax, get treated like a criminal and then possibly die while you're waiting for the government to grant you permission to exercise your God given right to protect yourself. Registration leads to confiscation and getting a permit does register you with the government as being a weapon owner & carrier. Police in NV, I know for a fact, can see this on their computer when they pull you over.
Well said, but drop the brown sentence. ;)
Just to add on here, not only are you registered with the government, in some places the government then releases that information to the press. The newspaper here, on a monthly basis, prints the names of those who either are issued new permits, or renew their exisitng ones.
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-10, 09:20
I'm not saying we should infringe the right to bear arms.
I'm saying that if we didn't background check people, then people who have criminal records who knew they wouldn't be checked COULD have an easier time getting guns.
This is just a theory that is plausible. Not something I have real information to back up.
But there would be criminals (I'm sure) who would take advantage of not getting background checked.
Also I think that some people who are suicidal could take advantage of it.
Though if determined enough I don't think they'd waste the time to go find and buy a gun and ammunition. So that might be me talking out of my ass again.
To support everybody here. If firearms had NO regulations at all, it would balance and self regulate. Which I would support. But hey... if we have to have restrictions. At least have them logical.
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-10, 09:25
Just to add on here, not only are you registered with the government, in some places the government then releases that information to the press. The newspaper here, on a monthly basis, prints the names of those who either are issued new permits, or renew their exisitng ones.
I heard about that. Didn't Indiana lose their shit when that happened? And the organization that started that shit lost their government endorsements or something like that?
I do know that the organization in Indiana who printed the original list was supported by the Brady Campaign, and on the news they compared those with CCPs to child molesters and murderers.
D': Out-****ing-ragous.
Magic_Salad0892
03-26-10, 09:28
I'm somewhat torn on this. Like some others in this thread, I saw some truly scary stuff in both my initial 16-hour class (at Gunsite, no less) and the 4-hour 'refresher' class. One woman jammed her P232 and did a 180, sweeping half the range, to ask the instructor what to do. Turns out she'd bought the gun the day before, and had never lubricated it because she didn't know it was necessary. Another guy shot his crappy Taurus PT-92 clone with his strong hand on the grip, and the dust cover lying on the palm of his support hand like it was some kind of rifle. Several folks told him he was going to blow his hand off one day, but he didn't seem to care. Then there were the barely-21 kids from the community college who kept asking the instructor "So when do I get to legally pop a cap in someone's ass?". That's just at the initial class. The refresher class had people who were incapable of HITTING THE SILHOUETTE TARGET AT 7 YARDS. You know what? Everyone, in both classes, got passed. Carrying a firearm in public is a fundamental constitutional right. It's also a heady responsibility, and one which requires extensive training and experience. These tards lacked it utterly.
In a perfect world, people who take up this responsibility will also get and maintain training. But this is far from a perfect world. I'd like to see people get at least the bare minimum of training that a CCW class entails. At least that exposes them to people who know more than they saw in the last Stallone flick. AZ's shall-issue law is not onerous. Go to a 4-hour class, put 10 rounds on target @ 7 yards, and you're good to go. An anti-gun LE official can't deny you a permit like they can in California or New York. As long as you're not prohibited from owning a gun, and have a rudimentary proficiency, you're guaranteed the legal ability to carry concealed. If you choose not to do this, anyone can carry openly without a permit. I'd rather see more places open to licensed carry than doing away with licensing altogether. I still can't carry to my son's school when he's old enough to go, for instance.
I also worry about reciprocity. Right now, my Arizona permit lets me carry in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania when I go home to visit, as well as several other states. Vermont doesn't have reciprocity with anyone because they don't issue a permit. Alaska still has permits for out-of-state reciprocity, they just don't require one to carry concealed in state. I hope this is the route Arizona is taking.
Finally, having a permit makes buying guns a lot easier. Instead of waiting for the feds to do a background check, or having to put my SSN down on the 4473, I just hand the dealer my permit along with my license and I'm good to go.
Just my $.02.
This is why I said we should not do away with CCPs. Not trying to infringe an amendment.
Making sure it's held by competent, responsible, people.
BTW: Those people should have NEVER passed.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/03/26/20100326politics-weapons0326.html
The Arizona House has given preliminary approval to legislation that would make Arizona the third state in the nation to allow adults to carry concealed guns without permits.
The House Committee of the Whole approved the measure on a voice vote Thursday after changing its bill to match a version poised for a final vote in the Senate.
A final vote also is needed in the House.
The legislation would allow any U.S. citizen 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit that now is required.
A permit would still be needed in some instances, particularly for carrying a concealed weapon into a business that serves alcohol or one that forbids concealed firearms.
Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, said the measure expands the liberty of Arizonans and supports the Second Amendment.
"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you ought to have the right to carry as a law-abiding citizen," he said.
Currently in Arizona, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons.
Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he is a lifelong gun owner, but he opposes the measure.
Arizona's concealed-weapons permit program "is a great program that helps both citizens carry a concealed weapon and law enforcement discern who might be carrying a weapon," he said.
"If a person is not willing to go to an eight-hour class, get some skills training and pay a small fine, I'm not sure I want that person carrying a concealed weapon in this state," Campbell added.
This is why I said we should not do away with CCPs. Not trying to infringe an amendment.
Making sure it's held by competent, responsible, people.
They should do the same for a computer and an internet connection.
I'm somewhat torn on this. Like some others in this thread, I saw some truly scary stuff in both my initial 16-hour class (at Gunsite, no less) and the 4-hour 'refresher' class. One woman jammed her P232 and did a 180, sweeping half the range, to ask the instructor what to do. Turns out she'd bought the gun the day before, and had never lubricated it because she didn't know it was necessary. Another guy shot his crappy Taurus PT-92 clone with his strong hand on the grip, and the dust cover lying on the palm of his support hand like it was some kind of rifle. Several folks told him he was going to blow his hand off one day, but he didn't seem to care. Then there were the barely-21 kids from the community college who kept asking the instructor "So when do I get to legally pop a cap in someone's ass?". That's just at the initial class. The refresher class had people who were incapable of HITTING THE SILHOUETTE TARGET AT 7 YARDS. You know what? Everyone, in both classes, got passed. Carrying a firearm in public is a fundamental constitutional right. It's also a heady responsibility, and one which requires extensive training and experience. These tards lacked it utterly.
I also am mixed ? but the above story is reason I say forget it all together or make it much tougher to get it
as it is now its a joke and a way to make some extra money and have more gov BS paper work etc..
nobody ever fails ? if they do they come back and get passed
as I said earlier I wish others took driving serious but they hand out lic to idiots and cars kill tons of people and bad drivers kill way more people than people with guns on the street
and yet like criminals who cant drive or carry guns they still do !!!
so I say just make the gun and driving laws insanely huge on criminals !
carry a gun if you are a felon its life in prison no chance for parole get the bad guys off the street
OK not real but fun to wish time !!!!
or get all of them together each day and throw them in a huge room with the guns they had let them fight it out and say the last guy standing gets to live to tomorrow and have a nice dinner till the next batch comes in ! this way its like only paying for one prisoner a day !
the next day the new guys come in dig the graves and burry the ones from the day before clean up the mess then the process repeats itself :)
A permit would still be needed in some instances, particularly for carrying a concealed weapon into a business that serves alcohol or one that forbids concealed firearms.
Interesting. So they're keeping the permit, and enhancing it to allow me to ignore the no-guns signs at, say, Ikea, as well as restaurants that serve alcohol (I assume they're retaining the prohibition against drinking and carrying). I can live with that :)
Magic_Salad0892
03-27-10, 02:23
They should do the same for a computer and an internet connection.
I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way, but can we please keep this civil, sir? :)
To be honest I do understand and mostly support your view of getting rid of CCPs all together.
But like I said earlier, if we must have regulations. We need to keep them logical.
Or are we working in reverse liberalism? (Getting firearms to be completely non-regulated a little at a time instead of all at once.)
If so I'm all for it.
I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way, but can we please keep this civil, sir? :)
It wasn't meant to be directed at you specifically, more of a general statement if you will. All amendments should be treated equally whether it's the 1st or the 2nd. You aren't required to pay a tax, hopefully be approved for a permit and then possibly be granted that permission within 90 days or so for your freedom of speech.
Vermont is the best example we have of not having to pay a tax and ask the permission of your government to defend yourself and your family and it's worked out quite well.
Magic_Salad0892
03-27-10, 19:17
Ah. I'm sorry for my misinterpretation.
Yeah it's worked out very well for them but in some places it wont. Some places should get there gradually.
California, Michigan, Washington.
To name a few.
If you try to do this all of a sudden in a place with a high crime rate then you will have problems.
Try doing this in places with moderate to low crime rates.
Oregon, Texas, Arizona, etc.
The other places mentioned need to get there a little more slowly.
Ah. I'm sorry for my misinterpretation.
Yeah it's worked out very well for them but in some places it wont. Some places should get there gradually.
California, Michigan, Washington.
To name a few.
If you try to do this all of a sudden in a place with a high crime rate then you will have problems.
Why do you assume this? Do you have any factual information to back up this presumption? Give us a reason why it won't work. Otherwise, you are just doing what the anti-gun people always do - making assertions based on emotion and "what ifs" rather than reality.
Some of the highest crime rates occur in jurisdictions with the most gun restrictions. Allow the entire populace to arm themselves without restriction might just bring the crime rate down. Criminals might not be cautious at first, but they will learn quickly after a few get shot by civilians.
Magic_Salad0892
03-28-10, 03:45
Why do you assume this? Do you have any factual information to back up this presumption? Give us a reason why it won't work. Otherwise, you are just doing what the anti-gun people always do - making assertions based on emotion and "what ifs" rather than reality.
Some of the highest crime rates occur in jurisdictions with the most gun restrictions. Allow the entire populace to arm themselves without restriction might just bring the crime rate down. Criminals might not be cautious at first, but they will learn quickly after a few get shot by civilians.
Sorry, you're right I should have posted my reason.
Honestly I have no factual information, just a very plausible theory.
If you all of a sudden made that law functional in high-crime areas instead of getting there gradually, then you'll POSSIBLY have criminals buying guns legitimately knowing they won't get background checked. It COULD take longer for the crime rate to drop.
Granted it would drop, just slower than it would if it just eased it's way to non-regulation.
Even if you don't understand my point, do you understand what I'm getting at?
It's a plausible theory. But, as this hasn't (to my knowledge - which may or may not be limited in this subject) happened before (a high-crime area all of a sudden getting unrestricted gun rights)
I don't have a real event to base my assumption on.
Sorry, you're right I should have posted my reason.
Honestly I have no factual information, just a very plausible theory.
If you all of a sudden made that law functional in high-crime areas instead of getting there gradually, then you'll POSSIBLY have criminals buying guns legitimately knowing they won't get background checked. It COULD take longer for the crime rate to drop.
Granted it would drop, just slower than it would if it just eased it's way to non-regulation.
Even if you don't understand my point, do you understand what I'm getting at?
It's a plausible theory. But, as this hasn't (to my knowledge - which may or may not be limited in this subject) happened before (a high-crime area all of a sudden getting unrestricted gun rights)
I don't have a real event to base my assumption on.
What makes you think criminals get there guns through legal purchases?
What stops them NOW from getting them? Nothing.
The law(s) would allow the legal people to carry.
This would help lower crime due to that alone.
When the bar law (CC in establishment serving alcohol) passed here a few months ago, the liberals were telling everyone "we'll have shootouts like the OK corral". Hmmm, maybe the news I watch didn't cover those stories...;)
Let's get all the causes of this gun control stuff out in the open:
NFA passed in 1934 because with the advent of the Thompson submachine gun during prohibition, gangsters could easily and legally purchase tremendous firepower and wage war in the streets over alcohol distribution. Also included in the legislation were short barrel rifles and shotguns due to their ease of concealment and preferential use by bank robbers like John Dillenger (favoring two short barreled semi-auto shotguns in slings under his coat) and Bonnie & Clyde (short barreled BAR).
The real problem was prohibition, not the guns. Ending prohibition ended the warfare even thought all those Thompsons didn't just disappear overnight when prohibition was repealed.
The GCA of 1968 was passed due to fear of armed militant organizations like the Black Panthers. Prior to that, with the exception of NFA items, anyone could buy a gun without a background check, no FFL's were needed, and there were no restrictions on shipping by mail. Racism and fear drove this legislation, yet it had little effect on preventing the turbulent 60's from turning into the high crime rates and urban decay of the 70's. He have AFDC and other government programs to thank for that, along with the epidemic of heroin addiction and associated turf wars.
In the 80's, cocaine became the drug of choice and crack cocaine drove crime rates even higher and destroyed the inner cities even further than heroin did. Fear of inner city drug gangs with unlicensed full-auto Uzi's, Mac-10's and other NFA regulated items led to the Machine Gun ban of 1986, preventing production of any more transferable MG's. There weren't a lot of cases of MG use in crime, it was just played up on TV shows, and the fear reached a high enough level.
In 1989 came the ban on foreign importation of certain military pattern rifles again due to fear of drug gangs with AK-47's and other imported guns. The only effect this had was to force importers to start building the banned items in the US, and it also encouraged the growth of the US-based AR industry.
1994 again brought more fear of crime and the AWB, even though actual "assault weapon" use by criminals was quite low.
Along the way throughout the 20th century, various cities banned handguns and limited concealed carry. By the 80's, most states banned carry altogether.
None of these acts had a direct result on reducing crime. All were based on fear of criminals and minorities and only served to disarm citizens, not the criminals. And by disarming citizens in high crime areas, they have been made much less safe and more easily victimized.
In almost all cases crime continued to rise, until the underlying cause of the crime was either resolved or died out on its own. Effective data-based policing in NYC under Rudy Guiliani brought crime down, not gun restrictions. Chicago and DC had handgun bans and still had sky high gun murders by adolescents.
Gun control has destroyed the inner cities by letting criminals take over with impunity. It has enslaved the working poor that live in these areas and de-sensitized their children to constant street violence and murder. Yet people still want to blame the gun and not the person who fires it.
Crime has actually dropped considerably in the past decade or two, following the expansion of right-to-carry legislation in the majority of states.
I don't think we are saying we should eliminate background checks for gun purchases. If felons and other criminals are banned from owning guns (as they are banned from voting), then it stands to reason we shouldn't sell them guns, just like we don't sell alcohol to people under 21. I think NICS does prevent some FFL sales to prohibited persons, but they get their guns anyway, just like teenagers get their alcohol.
So the next step the anti-gun people want is to ban gun shows and require FFL's to transfer all guns, meaning no person-to-person sales. But then, criminals will still buy guns from people willing to break the law and do a non-FFL transfer and then claim the gun was lost or stolen.
So once again, let's ask ourselves honestly - has gun control ever worked?
Magic_Salad0892
03-28-10, 11:14
What makes you think criminals get there guns through legal purchases?
What stops them NOW from getting them? Nothing.
The law(s) would allow the legal people to carry.
This would help lower crime due to that alone.
They're not getting guns legally now because of the background check system.
What stops a law abiding citizen from getting a gun? Nothing.
When John Doe walks into The Gun Room and tries to purchase a Beretta 92 and two boxes of 9x19 JHPs they know not to sell it to him because his background check says he's a registered sex offender.
When Jane Doe walks into the same store looking to purchase a Glock 27 they know that it's okay purchase because she has a CCP.
If we eliminate the background check system, we should do it gradually.
It's getting closer :D http://www.examiner.com/x-38782-Tucson-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d30-Arizona-gun-law-is-on-the-move
SB 1108, the Constitutional Carry bill passed the Senate on the third read on Monday, March 29. Since the House passed an identical bill (HB 2347) it appears that SB 1108 will be substituted for HB 2347 for the House third read. The vote could be as early as today, March 30, 2010.
With the passage of this bill, Arizona will be the third state to adopt a Vermont style carry. No permit will be needed to carry either openly or concealed except where a permit is required by existing law. Restaurants that serve alcohol will require a permit and concealed carry. The Arizona permit will be maintained for reciprocity and background check purposes.
Preemption clarification and strengthening also passed the Senate, will now go the House where the same substitution is expected.
The Arizona Firearms Freedom Act, similar to Montana’s passed the House and heads to the Senate for formality.
These historic bills could leave for Governor Brewer’s desk as early as tomorrow. She is expected to sign them into law.
In the first draft of the Constitutional Carry bill, the wording indicated that this would only apply to Arizona residents. However, the wording has now been changed to ‘a person’ which implies this will apply to anyone in the state, resident or not. We will have to wait and see the final draft for the actual outcome.
Gary Slider, co-owner of Handgunlaw.us is going to be busy, not only with the changes in Arizona law, but many other states as well. Hang in there Gary. You do a marvelous job of keeping the site updated and are to be commended.
rifleman2000
03-31-10, 12:00
I'm not saying we should infringe the right to bear arms.
I'm saying that if we didn't background check people, then people who have criminal records who knew they wouldn't be checked COULD have an easier time getting guns.
I stopped reading there. Criminals get guns without a background check and carry where they want without a permit. You are thinking like a liberal.
They're not getting guns legally now because of the background check system.
What stops a law abiding citizen from getting a gun? Nothing.
When John Doe walks into The Gun Room and tries to purchase a Beretta 92 and two boxes of 9x19 JHPs they know not to sell it to him because his background check says he's a registered sex offender.
When Jane Doe walks into the same store looking to purchase a Glock 27 they know that it's okay purchase because she has a CCP.
If we eliminate the background check system, we should do it gradually.
Not sure how things work in Oregon, but in Arizona if you DO NOT have a CWP, you are subjected to a background check and unless there is something awry, it is done in a matter of minutes, DPS has really streamined the system. Not sure how you are correlating the new law with no background checks.
Magic_Salad0892
04-03-10, 04:06
Not sure how things work in Oregon, but in Arizona if you DO NOT have a CWP, you are subjected to a background check and unless there is something awry, it is done in a matter of minutes, DPS has really streamined the system. Not sure how you are correlating the new law with no background checks.
Sorry if I seemed unclear, I wasn't correlating it with no background checks. I was responding to the whole ''We shouldn't have background checks'' comments.
Magic_Salad0892
04-03-10, 04:09
I stopped reading there. Criminals get guns without a background check and carry where they want without a permit. You are thinking like a liberal.
I know that's what it sounds like, but I'd rather them not be able to do it legally.
I'd rather it be done illegally, and a little harder, rather than broadly in public.
I'm also not saying it WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IT SUPER EASY FOR CRIMINALS TO GET GUNS. OMG. BAN THEM. NAO.
I'm saying I'd very much like to inconvenience them by denying them firearms legally, and remain selling firearms to people who don't have criminal backgrounds. It gives me a little piece of mind.
We've made it difficult for criminals to buy guns legally, so what other criminals do is break into our damn houses because we created a market for illegal stolen guns.
Like my uncle joked. They don't need more room at Folsom, they just need to use one room more.
Juries should have only two options, up to 364 days in jail, or the death penalty. Otherwise it's a communist joke. Not because there are a bunch of communists in government who mainly buy hookers, blow, pensions, healthcare and anti-depressants for themselves on your dime, but the current legal situation of split-the-difference sentencing was the subject of an actual Stalinist era joke.
One day Stalin can't find his favorite pipe, so he orders the police to find those responsible for the theft of his pipe. They come up empty handed, so he tells them to find 100 people anyway, charge them, and sentence them to death. 100 innocent people are arrested and sentenced. Some time later his maid finds the pipe under a desk and upon this news Stalin splits the difference and gives them all 10-25 years in a Gulag.
Badguys are a threat because they are breathing, not because they didn't get their background check and protein pills.
We've made it difficult for criminals to buy guns legally, so what other criminals do is break into our damn houses because we created a market for illegal stolen guns.
Like my uncle joked. They don't need more room at Folsom, they just need to use one room more.
Juries should have only two options, up to 364 days in jail, or the death penalty. Otherwise it's a communist joke. Not because there are a bunch of communists in government who mainly buy hookers, blow, pensions, healthcare and anti-depressants for themselves on your dime, but the current legal situation of split-the-difference sentencing was the subject of an actual Stalinist era joke.
One day Stalin can't find his favorite pipe, so he orders the police to find those responsible for the theft of his pipe. They come up empty handed, so he tells them to find 100 people anyway, charge them, and sentence them to death. 100 innocent people are arrested and sentenced. Some time later his maid finds the pipe under a desk and upon this news Stalin splits the difference and gives them all 10-25 years in a Gulag.
Badguys are a threat because they are breathing, not because they didn't get their background check and protein pills.
Anyone who can't be trusted with the possession of a firearm, can't be trusted in public at all--even unarmed. Instead of barring convicted violent felons from possessing weapons, stop these violent felons from re-entering public life at all. There is no reason to infringe on the 2nd amendment; for criminals it should be a moot question.
Yep. Guns are tools, it's the person that is the truly dangerous object.
Magic_Salad0892
04-05-10, 10:32
We've made it difficult for criminals to buy guns legally, so what other criminals do is break into our damn houses because we created a market for illegal stolen guns.
That's a damn good argument.
Still though, being a gun shop employee, I would not like to legally sell somebody a firearm legally then find out the hard way that they had a criminal record as a sex offender, or armed burglar.
Even if the law wouldn't convict me, I'd still be accessory for whatever crime they purchased with the firearm I sold them legally.
Which wouldn't be illegal in this case, but I'd lose a LOT of sleep over it.
An old friend of mine worked at a gun store for years in Washington, he sold a gun to a guy, who passed the background check and everything. The man went home and shot his wife, and his brother, who were sleeping together behind his back. My friend no longer works for the gun store, and is on anti-depressants after finding out almost a year later.
Moral of the story: Yes crime will always be there (even in small quantity) but I'd like to avoid being accessory, indirectly.
I know the argument in this post, isn't the best argument. But I'm hoping it makes sense to you guys.
Just some other Arizona gun law stuff. http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12260270
PHOENIX (AP) - Gov. Jan Brewer has signed into law two bills supported by gun-rights activists.
1 of the bills signed Monday would broaden the state's current restrictions on local governments' ability to regulate or tax guns and ammunition. One specific provision bars local governments from prohibiting a person with a concealed weapons permit from possessing a gun in a park.
The other bill declares that guns manufactured entirely in Arizona are exempt from federal oversight and are not subject to federal laws restricting the sale of firearms or requiring them to be registered.
Brewer says that bill "should send a clear and convincing message that politicians in Washington should not attempt to get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights."
I don't remember if I posted the actual bill, here's a link: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1102p.htm
The other bill declares that guns manufactured entirely in Arizona are exempt from federal oversight and are not subject to federal laws restricting the sale of firearms or requiring them to be registered.
so would this include class III stuff ? from what I read in other states that would be true ?
so would this include class III stuff ? from what I read in other states that would be true ?
I believe this is the case. Many states have either passed similar laws or are in the process of trying to do so now. However, I haven't done much research on the topic so I can't give you a very definitive answer.
Magic_Salad0892
04-07-10, 08:51
Hey, Irishluck do you know if it's legal to defend yourself with NFA items?
Suppressors, SBRs, etc.
Hey, Irishluck do you know if it's legal to defend yourself with NFA items?
Suppressors, SBRs, etc.
If they're legal for you to own then they should be legal for you to defend yourself with, obviously taking in to account WA suppressor laws and anomalies of that nature. I don't mind answering here but if you want an in depth opinion and discussion on it I think you should start a new thread in the NFA section of the forum.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/04/09/20100409gunbill0409.html
Within the next week, Arizona could become the first state with a large urban population to allow U.S. citizens 21 and older to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Only Alaska and Vermont have similar allowances.
Senate Bill 1108, crafted by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday with a vote of 36-19 and no comments from either side.
"This is a big day," National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said. "This is a major restoration of a principal right."
The bill will go to the governor Monday, and Gov. Jan Brewer will have until the following Saturday to sign it, veto it, or do nothing and allow it to become law. The law would go into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, which could happen within the next few weeks.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said she has not made a final decision on whether she will sign the bill. "But she has a long track record of strong, vigorous support of the Second Amendment," he said.
As of April 4, there were 154,279 active concealed-carry weapon permits in Arizona. The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to Harold Sanders, Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles. Sanders said it's impossible to know how the legislation would affect that budget or state employees.
Dogali said many gun owners will still likely get a permit. They would still be needed in order to carry a weapon into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol as well as for an Arizonan to carry his or her weapon concealed in most states.
The training requirements to get the permit would change under the proposed law. John Thomas, lobbyist for the Arizona Chiefs of Police, said the new provisions don't require the training class to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon.
A background check would still be required to get a permit, as well as to buy a gun in most cases. Brewer this week signed another law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.
The chiefs association was originally opposed to the concealed-weapons bill. It worked to get several provisions added, and the group now is neutral. Those provisions include requiring gun owners to accurately answer an officer when asked if they are carrying a weapon and allowing police to temporarily confiscate the weapon while they are in contact with someone.
If the bill becomes law, Thomas said both law enforcement and residents should expect changes.
"You're going to have officers approaching people and asking them if they are carrying a weapon," he said. "And if a policeman asks you if you are carrying a weapon and you do not answer accurately, it's a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable with six months in jail."
He said Arizonans also should start assuming that starting sometime late this summer, a lot more people with no training will likely be carrying concealed guns.
MarshallDodge
04-09-10, 16:32
This is good news. I am sure other states including Utah will follow.
This is bogus:
As of April 4, there were 154,279 active concealed-carry weapon permits in Arizona. The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to Harold Sanders, Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles. Sanders said it's impossible to know how the legislation would affect that budget or state employees.
It doesn't really matter. The state charged for permits, something that is unconstitutional, and now they may not be able to any longer. Oh well. :p
I agree. It's not about making people "safer" it's about generating revenue. AZ is one of the leading states in the race for Constitutional freedoms and is looking like a place where I may want to relocate to, VT & AK are way too cold for my taste. One more article I read today. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ef949487-1f99-5ea6-96bc-988124f6b72b.html
PHOENIX - Arizona is on the verge of becoming the third state to let just about any adult carry a concealed weapon.
Without a word of debate, the House voted 36-19 on Wednesday to eliminate the criminal penalties that now exist if someone has a hidden gun without the necessary state permit. The Senate already has approved the measure.
That leaves only the anticipated signature of Gov. Jan Brewer on SB 1108. The change would become official 91 days after the legislative session ends, which at the current projection would put the new law on the books at the end of July.
Gubernatorial press aide Paul Senseman said she wants to review the final version before making a decision. But he indicated that, barring something unexpected in the bill, it will get her signature.
"Governor Brewer has been a longtime supporter of and vigorous protector of Second Amendment rights," he said. And Brewer herself, talking about Arizona history last year to the National Rifle Association, cited what she said was this state's long tradition of people with guns, often not visible.
"You know, a saloon girl or two were even known to keep a derringer in their garter belt, just in case," she said.
Only Vermont and Alaska permit any adult to carry a concealed weapon.
Under current Arizona law, any qualified adult - meaning not a convicted felon or someone mentally incapacitated - can openly carry a gun. But Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, one of the main proponents of the change, said that right, while perhaps sufficient in territorial days, is meaningless for many people today.
He said it effectively disarms a woman who would want to have a gun in a purse or anyone who would like a gun on the hip but also wants to wear a jacket.
Supporters also argued those who do not want to carry openly should not have to get permission from the state.
Getting a permit currently requires attending an eight-hour, state-approved class. Subjects include the legality of the use of deadly force, marksmanship and judgmental shooting. And applicants must undergo a criminal background check.
Arizonans who want will still be able to get a state-issued concealed-weapon permit even after the new law takes effect. One of the main benefits is that other states with their own permitting systems routinely honor licenses issued in Arizona; an Arizonan with a concealed gun but without a permit going to another state would remain subject to arrest.
The legislation actually would make it easier to get a state permit.
Instead of having to complete a state-approved course, applicants could qualify by completing any NRA firearms safety or training course, any special course offered for security guards and investigators, or any hunter-education or safety course approved by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, one of the foes of the measure, said the change will make life more difficult for police officers.
Right now, she said, officers who find people with concealed weapons can arrest them for that reason alone if they don't have a permit.
Sinema said the change in law leaves officers without options when encountering gang members and others who are committing no other crime.
by the numbers
Concealed-weapon permit holders in Arizona since 2000:
• 2000: 61,228
• 2001: 65,276
• 2002: 67,692
• 2003: 66,677
• 2004: 68,856
• 2005: 74,161
• 2006: 85,404
• 2007: 99,370
• 2008: 117,684
• 2009: 147,121
• Latest count: 153,209
SOURCE: Arizona Department of Public Safety
Apu: "Where's a gun-toting lowlife when you need one?"
Snake: "Sorry, I was in the can."
Too Funny!!!
Sure is nice to know we can cc without all the hoopla and extra expense....not to mention the paper trail. Just another, of many, reasons to live in Arizona!! Come-on down, we're going to need all the help we can get when we secede from the rest of the country!! ;)
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
:)
I live in AZ. My first reaction to this was "they are completely nuts". Then I thought about it and it makes perfect sence.
Anyone can open carry a pistol, no permit required. How is having it concealed much different? Its not going to make anything easier for criminals. And now that I've learned the permit will still be availible and I won't loose my ability to carry in other states Im all for it :)
I'm mixed on this. My 16hr CCW class (in AZ) was amazing, and has led to me getting additional training. One lady did not pass shooting qual, and I AM GLAD she didn't get her CCW. She couldn't even hit the giant man sized target from close range.
As stated earlier, around 150k people in AZ currently possess a CCW, meaning that they have taken one or more classes. This is probably the only training/education on carrying in public and related topics that most of them will receive. That is my main complaint.
I know many of you are 100% behind this law, but you have to admit that there are PROS and CONS. I have my permit, so in my eyes everyone else can take the damn class and learn something. Call me selfish, but that is how I see it. The class is even 8hr now instead of 16hr.
I also wonder about suspicious Johnny Thug who gets stopped by the police. Johnny doesn't have a felony because he hasn't been caught yet. Johnny Thug likes to conceal a Jennings, but he would never take the time to get a permit because he likes smoking rock instead. With the new law, the police have to let Johnny Thug be on his merry way instead of arresting him.
All the hand wringers and the sky is falling types should take a good look at Vermont & Alaska and see how many CCW holders are shooting up the place without "proper training". http://www.examiner.com/x-8642-LA-National-Security-Examiner~y2010m4d9-Arizona-concealed-weapons-bill-expected-to-become-law
Within the next week, Arizona could become the first state with a large urban population to allow U.S. citizens to carry a concealed firearm without a permit throughout the state of Arizona. Only Alaska and Vermont have similar laws.
The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.
Currently, in Arizona carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
Senate Bill 1108, crafted by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday with a vote of 36-19 and no comments from either side.
"This is a big day," National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said. "This is a major restoration of a principal right."
The bill will go to the governor Monday, and Gov. Jan Brewer will have until the following Saturday to sign it, veto it, or do nothing and allow it to become law. The law would go into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, which could happen within the next few weeks.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said she has not made a final decision on whether she will sign the bill. "But she has a long track record of strong, vigorous support of the Second Amendment," he said.
As of April 4, there were 154,279 active concealed-carry weapon permits in Arizona.
The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to Harold Sanders, Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles. Sanders said it's impossible to know how the legislation would affect that budget or state employees.
Dogali said many gun owners will still likely get a permit. They would still be needed in order to carry a weapon into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol as well as for an Arizonan to carry his or her weapon concealed in most states.
The training requirements to get the permit would change under the proposed law. John Thomas, lobbyist for the Arizona Chiefs of Police, said the new provisions don't require the training class to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon.
A background check would still be required to get a permit, as well as to buy a gun in most cases. Brewer this week signed another law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.
The chiefs association was originally opposed to the concealed-weapons bill. It worked to get several provisions added, and the group now is neutral. Those provisions include requiring gun owners to accurately answer an officer when asked if they are carrying a weapon and allowing police to temporarily confiscate the weapon while they are in contact with someone.
"You're going to have officers approaching people and asking them if they are carrying a weapon," he said. "And if a policeman asks you if you are carrying a weapon and you do not answer accurately, it's a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable with six months in jail."
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has already signed the Arizona Firearms Freedom Act (HB 2307) into law, making Arizona the sixth state to pass this type of historic Tenth Amendment legislation.
The Arizona Legislature passed Bill 2307 on April 5. The new law exempts any gun, gun accessory or ammunition from the federal regulation as long as the weapon is manufactured, sold and used within the state.
It excludes firearms that require more than one person to fire them; firearms that have ammunition that explodes after leaving the weapon; firearms that have a bore diameter of more than 1-½ inches and use smokeless powder; and firearms that shoot more than one projectile at a time.
The new law is based off of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act that was passed last year. Similar laws have been introduced in 21 other states.
There could be another federal lawsuit on the horizon that Arizona may get involved with.
According to The Associated Press, the attorneys general for Utah, Wyoming and South Dakota joined a lawsuit Wednesday filed by the attorney general of Montana protecting the state's right to regulate guns within the state boundaries.
According to a spokesman for "FirearmsFreedomAct.com", this was hardly Arizona’s first act of defiance against federal overreach. Last year, the Arizona Legislature passed a concurrent resolution known as the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, which will appear on the ballot this November. If approved by Arizona’s voters, it will amend the state’s constitution and guarantee Arizonans two things:
-That all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services.
-That all Arizonans have the right NOT to participate in any health care system, of any type.
Arizona is also on the verge of passing a bill that would nullify Cap and Trade (SCR 1050), as well as passing another bill that declares “..any incandescent light bulb manufactured entirely within Arizona and not exported to any other state is not subject to federal regulations.” (HB 2337).
Question: What do all these bills have in common? Answer: They all push back against Congress’ abuse of the “commerce clause”.
In an official statement released recently, Governor Brewer issued a stern warning to the federal government when she noted that the Arizona Firearms Freedom Act should:
“..send a clear and convincing message that politicians in Washington should not attempt to get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights.”
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object. (source, FirearmsFreedomAct.com)
States that have signed FFA’s into law now include Arizona, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota. Idaho’s Governor Butch Otter is expected to sign House Bill 589 into law, which will bring the total to seven states. Additionally eighteen other states have introduced nearly identical bills in their state legislatures. These bills have passed through one or more houses in five of those states.
Arizona’s FFA (HB 2307) is about much more than the right to keep and bear arms. The legislative findings contained in the act affirm that our union is a compact between the people of the several states, their state governments, and the federal government of the United States. It also declares that,
“The tenth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Arizona certain powers as they were understood at the time that Arizona was admitted to statehood in 1912. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Arizona and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed on and adopted by Arizona and the United States in 1912.”
Furthermore, the act explicitly denies that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to regulate commerce which takes place exclusively inside Arizona’s borders (intrastate commerce), which pertains to the manufacture of firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition. This assertion is clearly a direct challenge designed to confront the perversely expansive interpretation of the “commerce clause” which has prevailed in the US Supreme Court for decades.
In spite of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ assertion that the federal laws they enforce supersede the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit late last year in federal court to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
Constitution lawyers say all state governments have a concurrent power to decide when the federal government has overstepped its boundaries and violated the Constitution. They also have the authority to determine the best method to redress such a grievance when it occurs. Since the federal government is a limited creation of the people of the several states, it has no authority to usurp powers that were never granted to it in the Constitution, even when it is given extra-legal permission to do so by its own judicial branch.
If the courts fail to uphold the Constitution according to its original meaning, the people of Arizona and every other state have at least three more measures which could be unstoppable if combined and executed in a coordinated and orderly fashion. These three lines of defense are state nullification, interposition and non-violent civil disobedience.
Magic_Salad0892
04-10-10, 12:23
I hope more states can ease into this law.
I know earlier in the topic I said that we should keep background checks, but there comes a time when it does become unnecessary.
Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska, have gotten there.
Now if we can get the rest of us there...
I hope more states can ease into this law.
It's not easing into a law, it's getting rid of unnecessary laws that have been made contrary to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment, are over 218 years old. Shall not be infringed...
RancidSumo
04-10-10, 19:55
Anyone know where this ended up in WY?
MarshallDodge
04-11-10, 00:19
I'm mixed on this. My 16hr CCW class (in AZ) was amazing, and has led to me getting additional training. One lady did not pass shooting qual, and I AM GLAD she didn't get her CCW. She couldn't even hit the giant man sized target from close range.
As stated earlier, around 150k people in AZ currently possess a CCW, meaning that they have taken one or more classes. This is probably the only training/education on carrying in public and related topics that most of them will receive. That is my main complaint.
I know many of you are 100% behind this law, but you have to admit that there are PROS and CONS. I have my permit, so in my eyes everyone else can take the damn class and learn something. Call me selfish, but that is how I see it. The class is even 8hr now instead of 16hr.
I also wonder about suspicious Johnny Thug who gets stopped by the police. Johnny doesn't have a felony because he hasn't been caught yet. Johnny Thug likes to conceal a Jennings, but he would never take the time to get a permit because he likes smoking rock instead. With the new law, the police have to let Johnny Thug be on his merry way instead of arresting him.
You need to change your mindset.
It is the responsibility of the armed citizen to research and know the law. There are many things that classes don't teach you, things that are just plain common sense, and we really don't need the government setting the standard for what we need to know.
You need to change your mindset.
It is the responsibility of the armed citizen to research and know the law. There are many things that classes don't teach you, things that are just plain common sense, and we really don't need the government setting the standard for what we need to know.
Nice point of view, but I still disagree. That point of view is too idealistic for me. Just because people have common sense doesn't mean that they won't learn a lot during the class. Yes it was govt mandated, but the instructors and shooting range were the ones to set the quality standards, because if the class sucked no one would take more classes from them. My 16hr CCW class even included a little FATS simulator training which was awesome fun by the way.
Do you feel the same way about the drivers license requirements? Lets just assume everyone knows what a blinking red light means...
We are talking about a one day class here...not the end of the world if people are forced to take it. I was forced to take it and I'm still here...If they really really need to protect themselves they can open carry until they take the class (AZ is an open carry state).
No requirement=much less people getting training/education.
Ask a county jailer how many people get dragged in his facility daily for not having a license or driving on a suspended license.
The thing that separates rights from privileges is the immunity of those who exercise them so long as they don't hurt another person (not potentially hurt, but actually hurt). Otherwise you just have really nice privileges that can be stamped "revoked."
Many moons ago a relative of mine did search and rescue in the military. Did a lot of shooting at paper, either regular silhouettes or reactive targets, ones that would pop out of the ground, or from behind a building. Playing a video game gives a similar reaction after a while, when you see a target, you kill it. One day they put random good-guy "civilian" targets in a course. Because they had become so accustomed to shooting nothing but "badguys", they ventilated virtually every non-threatening target too. Their job became shooting everything that presented itself, and they couldn't help but do it. Good or bad, if you have trouble NOT doing your job, you were trained.
The only thing that prevented semi-stupid people from EVER doing anything weird with a firearm or car (in my experience) was a fear of many years of prison if they screwed up, because some cousin's brother's mother's father's son's roommate did it any was in the slammer... or so they think, maybe. Their job is to go drinking on the weekends, not do all that thinking crap.
Nice point of view, but I still disagree. That point of view is too idealistic for me. Just because people have common sense doesn't mean that they won't learn a lot during the class. Yes it was govt mandated, but the instructors and shooting range were the ones to set the quality standards, because if the class sucked no one would take more classes from them. My 16hr CCW class even included a little FATS simulator training which was awesome fun by the way.
Do you feel the same way about the drivers license requirements? Lets just assume everyone knows what a blinking red light means...
We are talking about a one day class here...not the end of the world if people are forced to take it. I was forced to take it and I'm still here...If they really really need to protect themselves they can open carry until they take the class (AZ is an open carry state).
No requirement=much less people getting training/education.
Indiana has NO training requirement for concealed carry licenses and it has simply NOT caused any problems. Once again we are arguing "what-ifs" instead of evidence from states that do not have training requirements. While Indiana is mostly rural, we have the 12th largest city in the country (Indianapolis), and various medium sized cities - Gary, Fort Wayne, etc. So it's not quite the same as Vermont and Alaska which also have no training (but they have no licensing either).
I also wonder about suspicious Johnny Thug who gets stopped by the police. Johnny doesn't have a felony because he hasn't been caught yet. Johnny Thug likes to conceal a Jennings, but he would never take the time to get a permit because he likes smoking rock instead. With the new law, the police have to let Johnny Thug be on his merry way instead of arresting him.
So why are the police stopping Johnny Thug and finding out he has a concealed handgun? Seems to me they would have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that he was doing something ELSE illegal before finding out he has a gun. If he was doing something else illegal - drug possession with or without intent - they would charge him with that. Then he would lose his right to carry if convicted of a felony.
Last I checked it wasn't a crime to "look suspicious" if you are doing nothing wrong.
Once again we are arguing "what-ifs" instead of evidence from states that do not have training requirements.
I know there are a few people who are hesitant to have this become law, I'm not one of them. Since VT and AK are our only 2 states, that I know of, without a permit requirement please provide some sort of info that would suggest your fears are founded in reality and not hypothetical what if situations. If there is a huge problem with people not attending classes or getting permission and training from .Gov then it should be relatively easy to come up with a list of incidents that have occured in these 2 states due to this.
Indiana has NO training requirement for concealed carry licenses and it has simply NOT caused any problems. Once again we are arguing "what-ifs" instead of evidence from states that do not have training requirements. While Indiana is mostly rural, we have the 12th largest city in the country (Indianapolis), and various medium sized cities - Gary, Fort Wayne, etc. So it's not quite the same as Vermont and Alaska which also have no training (but they have no licensing either).
Yes it is impossible to say exactly what problems this may cause, but I'm AZ is different enough from VT,AK or IN to highlight any problems with time. I just have a hard time believing that out of 150,000 people taking classes that this will have NO effect. It has to have some effect. I appreciate everyone's opinion on this. I'm not saying everyone is wrong, but I'm pointing out the problems that I see.
So why are the police stopping Johnny Thug and finding out he has a concealed handgun? Seems to me they would have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that he was doing something ELSE illegal before finding out he has a gun. If he was doing something else illegal - drug possession with or without intent - they would charge him with that. Then he would lose his right to carry if convicted of a felony.
Last I checked it wasn't a crime to "look suspicious" if you are doing nothing wrong.
Quite often police stop Johnnies, even if they personally haven't done anything other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have committed a minor infraction. For example, 4 Johnnies in a car, all 20 somethings, all male. Driver is speeding near the Mexican border and gets the car pulled over. They give fishy sounding stories. Rookie police officer says to his partner "Should we check the passengers for warrants and weapons?" His partner says "of course we should".Or another example, police break up an illegal party crew party with one hundred Johnnies inside.
Criminals DO NOT follow the law. Many are morons who won't take the time to get the permit. This fact makes it easy for the cops to bust them, but with this new law they won't be able to unless they are a felon, not all criminals are felons. That was my point.
IT IS DONE!!! :D
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Paul Senseman
April 16, 2010 (602) 542-1342
psenseman@az.gov
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer
Phoenix – “The State of Arizona has long been the home to defenders of personal liberty and the freedoms enshrined and protected by the Constitution of the United States and our State Constitution. I believe strongly in the individual rights and responsibilities of a free society, and as Governor I have pledged a solemn and important oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Today I signed Senate Bill 1108, the constitutional carry bill. I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well. I am joined in support of this legislation by both Republican and Democratic members of the Arizona legislature, and I laud the strong number of bipartisan supporters who join with me to defend the rights of our citizens.”
##
Mike Philipsen
Communications Advisor
Senate Majority Staff
602-926-3972
mphilipsen@azleg.gov
IT IS DONE!!! :D
GREAT NEWS!!!
Way to go Artizona, now if they could get rid of all the illegals, but at least Sheriff Joe Arpaio is trying
I really hope this turns out positive and more states will follow suit in the near future. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_46d99280-49a7-11df-9011-001cc4c03286.html
PHOENIX - Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people without a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The bill she signed Friday afternoon takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends. That likely will put the effective date in July or August.
"I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well," Brewer said in a statement.
Alaska and Vermont now do not require permits to carry concealed weapons.
By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.
Supporters say the bill promotes constitutional rights and allows people to protect themselves from criminals, while critics worry it will lead to more shootings as people with less training have fewer restrictions on carrying weapons.
Some police officials are concerned the law will lead to more accidental gun discharges from people untrained in firearm safety, or that shooters in stressful situations will accidentally strike innocent bystanders with stray bullets.
"I know a lot of 21 year olds; the maturity level is gravely concerning sometimes," said El Mirage Police Chief Mike Frazier, an Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police board member. "If you're going to be carrying a weapon you should know what the law is and how to use it."
However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.
The police chiefs group initially opposed the bill but then took a neutral stance after some provisions were changed at their request. Brewer's office also participated in negotiations on changes to the bill.
Arizona's permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried a semiautomatic rifle to a Phoenix protest outside a speech by President Barack Obama.
Nearly all adults can already carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and supporters of looser laws argue that gun owners shouldn't face additional restrictions just because they want to hide the weapon.
Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states - Illinois and Wisconsin - prohibit them altogether.
Federal law requires anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer to undergo a background check, but that requirement does not apply to sales by individuals who aren't dealers. Arizona's law won't change that.
Under the Arizona legislation, people carrying a concealed weapon will be required to tell a police officer that if asked, and the officer can temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the person.
More than 154,000 people have permits to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona.
The bill acted on by Brewer was the first attempt to lift the permit requirement to reach an Arizona governor's desk.
Brewer's predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, in 2007 vetoed two related bills. One would have reduced penalties for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. The other would have allowed a person without a permit to carry a gun largely concealed as long as any part of it or its holster was visible.
Brewer in 2008 signed into law a bill allowing a person with a permit to take a gun into a restaurant or bar serving alcohol as long as the establishment doesn't prohibit it and the person isn't drinking alcohol. Napolitano vetoed a similar bill in 2005.
SeriousStudent
04-16-10, 20:33
....
What stops a law abiding citizen from getting a gun? Nothing.
.............
Not if you live in Chicago, or until very recently, D.C.
No more licenses to ill.
Ill all you want to.
ForTehNguyen
04-16-10, 21:58
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_concealed_weapons_arizona
“That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”
Why do these people never learn that criminals already carry guns??
don't worry, i'm sure he'll retract that statement when the streets of arizona fail to run red with the blood of slain LE and innocents. :p
Good to see this passed......more guns, less crime! :D
Left-Sig, your post on the modern history of gun control laws is spot on. The firearms were blamed and ended up being regulated due to the failure of some other legislation (which was also not right as it is not within the govt's power to dictate what you can consume but that's another issue). I have said the very same thing numerous times on other forums but have stopped getting into it for quite some time now, because just as it has happened in this thread, people always let their judgment be overcome with emotion.
I'm going to be a bit bold and liken my response to emotional judgments to what the founding generation would have believed, thougn nowhere as eloquent:
Shit can happen when you are free, but I'd rather be free and take the chance.
Magic_Salad0892
04-17-10, 21:48
This is good news. :]
Eric Shelton
04-17-10, 22:02
As an Arizonan, and a CCW instructor, let me just throw some little tidbits out here for thought to anybody who thinks this isn't a good thing.
1) We have permitless open carry here in AZ anyway. So, what, now that you can exercise that very same right but let your jacket fall over your holster there's going to be pandemonium? That's just panicky or stupid on it's face.
2) I know entirely too many people who have their CCW permit and don't carry anyway. It's not part of their lives. So it's not like passage of this bill is suddenly going to arm the masses.
3) The AZ DPS class getting a CCW permit doesn't teach how to carry or shoot anyway! "Training" as an argument is pure poppycock. The 8 hour curriculum is freely viewable here (http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/Instructors/Resources/). The distinct lack of "training" in the class is exactly why I teach other stuff like Defensive Pistol. (I love the NRA, but their Basic Pistol class is terribly boring.)
4) Early in this thread somebody said something akin to "insert-name-here with a hidden Jennings will get away with stuff now because when the cop pulls him over the thug doesn't yet have a record." Really?!?! The best hopes you have for keeping some criminal off the street is freaking misdemeanor charge? And THAT is going to aid an officer more than probable cause?! A f***ing misdemeanor?!?!
My friend, if you believe #4 you are a fool who has spent too much time believing mass media reports. That's not an attack, simply an invitation to spend some time with critical thinkers who will help you logic your way out of your quagmire. ;) And yes, I just made "logic" a verb.
Please keep in mind, I'm a CCW instructor. Do I stand to "lose money thanks to this bill's passage"? Hell yes, I do. So I'll make it up elsewhere by teaching other classes, and by being the best I can be. But Americans (as I hear tell that we are here in the desert) reclaiming their rights, rather than depend on what Ted Nugent calls a tax with an expiration date is too good a thing for me to sit and gripe about.
kihnspiracy
04-17-10, 22:18
That is truly great news. What I would like to see is a national permit, good in all 50 states and DC just like a drivers license.:D
That is truly great news. What I would like to see is a national permit, good in all 50 states and DC just like a drivers license.:D
That won't be a good thing. We already have a national permit, it's called the 2nd Amendment.
The bill that was just passed was about not requiring a permit to CC or OC. Did you miss the point?
My feelings are mixed on the elimination of certification for concealed carry. For the sake of context, I am a sixth generation Arizonan, basically lifelong gun owner and a CCW holder who carries daily. I am proud of AZ's long history of supportive gun legislation. So what is my problem??
Education. Carrying concealed in public comes with some heavy responsibilities that affect us all, as I assume most everyone on this site would agree. There are many details with regard to justification for a shoot, consideration of the safety of others in the area, (including LEO responding to the situation), basic safe handling of a firearm under duress etc that are not necessarily given to common knowledge, especially for new or first time gun owners. So where and how does the average new shooter get this valuable information to carry responsibly and safely if not from their CCW certification class? I have 35 years of gun ownership and shooting experience and still learned a lot from the class. Some of it I remind myself of daily as I go about my business with pistol in tow. It's nice to think that anyone who chooses to carry in public would take the time to learn and practice these responsible skills, but I doubt that would be the norm.
When I did my CCW cert about half of the participants in the class had never shot a gun before in their lives. Some had borrowed a pistol for the class and a few had bought a new pistol for the class. I'm not exaggerating one single bit when I tell you that the instructors had to literally show them how to load rounds into the magazine and then insert the mag into the weapon. These folks had no clue about trigger or muzzle discipline and there were several of us who stepped back from the line a time or two because of the loose nature of their gun handling. The instructors were very patient but somewhat short-handed for the given task and time-constraints. Some of us even stayed over time into the dark in order to teach these folks the most basic of safety practices and to help them as they tried to get rounds on paper from 7 feet away. My hat was and is off to the instructors for their commitment to public safety. However the idea of these folks indiscriminately carrying in public makes me want to don armor! Now envision them without the benefit of experienced instruction...
I applaud anyone who wants to arm and protect themselves from the predatory slime out there. At the same time, I do think that there needs to be an education that precedes public carry and potential display of a lethal weapon in that public arena. For those of us that have been learned and have grown up with safe handling practices this may be a non-issue, but from my experience true seasoned shooters represent a minority of the current gun owning public. I think that there does need to be some training/certification that is required if you want to shoulder the responsibility of public carry... and I encourage every law abiding citizen to get that training/cert.
Probably not a popular opinion but that is how I feel about it. :cool:
Well said...agree 100%
As an Arizonan, and a CCW instructor, let me just throw some little tidbits out here for thought to anybody who thinks this isn't a good thing.
1) We have permitless open carry here in AZ anyway. So, what, now that you can exercise that very same right but let your jacket fall over your holster there's going to be pandemonium? That's just panicky or stupid on it's face.
2) I know entirely too many people who have their CCW permit and don't carry anyway. It's not part of their lives. So it's not like passage of this bill is suddenly going to arm the masses.
3) The AZ DPS class getting a CCW permit doesn't teach how to carry or shoot anyway! "Training" as an argument is pure poppycock. The 8 hour curriculum is freely viewable here (http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/Instructors/Resources/). The distinct lack of "training" in the class is exactly why I teach other stuff like Defensive Pistol. (I love the NRA, but their Basic Pistol class is terribly boring.)
4) Early in this thread somebody said something akin to "insert-name-here with a hidden Jennings will get away with stuff now because when the cop pulls him over the thug doesn't yet have a record." Really?!?! The best hopes you have for keeping some criminal off the street is freaking misdemeanor charge? And THAT is going to aid an officer more than probable cause?! A f***ing misdemeanor?!?!
My friend, if you believe #4 you are a fool who has spent too much time believing mass media reports. That's not an attack, simply an invitation to spend some time with critical thinkers who will help you logic your way out of your quagmire. ;) And yes, I just made "logic" a verb.
Please keep in mind, I'm a CCW instructor. Do I stand to "lose money thanks to this bill's passage"? Hell yes, I do. So I'll make it up elsewhere by teaching other classes, and by being the best I can be. But Americans (as I hear tell that we are here in the desert) reclaiming their rights, rather than depend on what Ted Nugent calls a tax with an expiration date is too good a thing for me to sit and gripe about.
So are you implying that as a CCW instructor you were utterly useless other than to process documents? Did you let everyone sleep during class? These people came to you for help defending their lives, right?
Maybe I am biased because I took a really great 16 hour class and learned a lot. It motivated me to take additional classes, shoot a few IDPA and steel leagues and spend more time at the range and practicing. Other students had a great time too, except for one lady who didn't pass qual-not even close. Some decided that they didn't want to carry because it was too much legal responsibility. I don't know what your classes were like but mine was far from useless.
“That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”
Why do these people never learn that criminals already carry guns??
Thats true, criminals will always carry no matter what, the only problem with this is that we cant put them in jail now!
Eric Shelton
04-18-10, 02:33
So are you implying that as a CCW instructor you were utterly useless other than to process documents? Did you let everyone sleep during class? These people came to you for help defending their lives, right?
Maybe I am biased because I took a really great 16 hour class and learned a lot. It motivated me to take additional classes, shoot a few IDPA and steel leagues and spend more time at the range and practicing. Other students had a great time too, except for one lady who didn't pass qual-not even close. Some decided that they didn't want to carry because it was too much legal responsibility. I don't know what your classes were like but mine was far from useless.
Wow. You can read the thought and points I put into my post and still make the leap into thinking I let students sleep in class. That's good.
And I'm thrilled you took a really great 16 hour course. I am. Now if you would have actually read my third point you would have picked up the link to the AZ DPS curriculum, the fact that's it's only 8 hours, and that I'm a proponent of training and go above and beyond what the CWPU requires.
While we're at it, please find an issue with my first, second, or fourth points. Seriously.
At no point did I say that the class was worthless- you're injecting that all on your own. What I said was that the curriculum is not "training". 10 round qualifier? Pfft. It's an academic class, per the state requirements. I encourage students to spend more time on the range, but it's not required. (And since this is something I do part-time, so far just teaching people in my unit, I can be selective of who I let in so I can avoid folks like the lady in your story.)
So far, I've had nothing but positive feedback from my classes. Because I can take a trip in the way back machine right along with you to the time a 16 hour course was required, and renewal classes. I've been through enough terribly boring and uninformative classes that I swore I'd do it better. You're welcome to attend freely anytime if you'll give me some usable feedback to further improve.
OTO27- You didn't read my fourth point, either. It was only a misdemeanor anyway. I assure you criminals weren't being "put away" on CCW charges- so why restrict the rights of the law-abiding?
ForTehNguyen
04-18-10, 09:26
Thats true, criminals will always carry no matter what, the only problem with this is that we cant put them in jail now!
it is still illegal to possess a firearm as a felon
At no point did I say that the class was worthless- you're injecting that all on your own. What I said was that the curriculum is not "training". 10 round qualifier? Pfft. It's an academic class, per the state requirements. I encourage students to spend more time on the range, but it's not required. (And since this is something I do part-time, so far just teaching people in my unit, I can be selective of who I let in so I can avoid folks like the lady in your story.)
The main purpose of the CCW is to teach the law, not to teach shooting skills. Knowing when you can use deadly force or even present your weapon is very important, right? Of course you can't fully train everyone firearms handling/shooting skills in 8 or 16 hours. That is why they don't try to do this in the CCW class. But in 8 you can teach the law. In a 16hr you can also get some training in and PROVE the need to that student to further his/her training. Remember, the 8 hour CCW class hasn't been around that long. It was just a stepping stone to no class at all.
1) We have permitless open carry here in AZ anyway. So, what, now that you can exercise that very same right but let your jacket fall over your holster there's going to be pandemonium? That's just panicky or stupid on it's face.
This is a good point. So if people need to protect themselves in public, they can open carry without a permit. For the other 154,000 people who don't want to open carry, they get the opportunity to take a class and learn something.
2) I know entirely too many people who have their CCW permit and don't carry anyway. It's not part of their lives. So it's not like passage of this bill is suddenly going to arm the masses.
You are right. It won't arm the masses. Just like the license requirement never disarmed the masses. I also know people who wanted to carry before the class, then did not want to carry after learning facts in the class. Learning is not a bad thing.
3) The AZ DPS class getting a CCW permit doesn't teach how to carry or shoot anyway! "Training" as an argument is pure poppycock. The 8 hour curriculum is freely viewable here. The distinct lack of "training" in the class is exactly why I teach other stuff like Defensive Pistol. (I love the NRA, but their Basic Pistol class is terribly boring.)
Again, learning the law is not the same thing as training. Firearms training is not the purpose of the CCW-I thought you would know this as an instructor. However, the 16 hour class I took was more comprehensive. They did spend some time on how to carry and shoot and many other things, and even threw us into 2-3 FATS gunfights. Even so, 8 hours is enough time to teach the law aspects. You can't google the law during a gunfight, you have to learn it first.
4) Early in this thread somebody said something akin to "insert-name-here with a hidden Jennings will get away with stuff now because when the cop pulls him over the thug doesn't yet have a record." Really?!?! The best hopes you have for keeping some criminal off the street is freaking misdemeanor charge? And THAT is going to aid an officer more than probable cause?! A f***ing misdemeanor?!?!
f***ing misdemeanor?!?! That is EXACTLY what I would be saying if I got up to 6 months in jail and a $2,500 fine! Sounds better than nothing to me, but maybe you like your criminals to live pampered lives.
it is still illegal to possess a firearm as a felon
As a LEO the whole idea that john doe who has never seen or fired a gun or had any training in weapons safety can legally shove a gun inside his pants and walk about, makes the hairs in the back of my neck stand up.
By the way, I dont remember exactly the numbers on this, its been a while since going through the academy, but a big percentage of "criminals or would be criminals" are usually between the ages of 15-25 and have not been charged with a felony yet. Although putting some one in jail for UCW (unauthorized conceal carry) here in Texas wont get you to prison, it will at least keep some one in jail for a few nights, who obviously did something wrong for an officer to make contact with any way. I think a lot of people resort to the only thing they know when they feel their freedoms are taken away, they will usually looselly mention the 2nd ammendment. They fail to reallice that times are very different now days. Although I am very big on gun ownership and have owend guns and carried (legally) even before being LEO, I still believe there needs to be restrictions and education involved with them. Carrying a gun is just as big a responsibility as driving a car, if not bigger, so what makes people think you shouldnt obtain a license to carry just as you would get a drivers license? A gun just like a car is a tool, both can take lives if used incorrectly. Some of you need to open your eyes about this, just because you took the initiative to self educate your selves on firearms and regularly frequent the range, doesnt mean every one out there does.
Thats true, criminals will always carry no matter what, the only problem with this is that we cant put them in jail now!
Carrying a means of self defense shouldn't be a crime in the first place. I'll bet I can guess your profession.
As a LEO the whole idea that john doe who has never seen or fired a gun or had any training in weapons safety can legally shove a gun inside his pants and walk about, makes the hairs in the back of my neck stand up.
Freedom is really scary. Only you should have the right to LEOSA like rights? Again, look at statistics and then present them here from a real legitimate source that shows any sort of problem with a law like this. Here's a hint, look at Vermont & Alaska. There's enough police out there who don't have a clue as to how to properly deploy a firearm and yet some they're exempt due to their job?
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/7453/magback.jpg (http://img691.imageshack.us/i/magback.jpg/)
Freedom is really scary. Only you should have the right to LEOSA like rights? Again, look at statistics and then present them here from a real legitimate source that shows any sort of problem with a law like this. Here's a hint, look at Vermont & Alaska. There's enough police out there who don't have a clue as to how to properly deploy a firearm and yet some they're exempt due to their job?
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/7453/magback.jpg (http://img691.imageshack.us/i/magback.jpg/)
Its really hard to model what this law would do for the rest of the country based on those two states. The fact is the divercity in population between vermont and Texas lets say, is very different. I wont mention the city that I work for in Texas but lets say that 90% of the people I come in contact with are illegals and come from thrid world countiries. Their ideas of fireamrs are very diferent than that of you and me. This has nothing to do with race, I consider my self a minority, thats not the point. The point is there a lot of border states that the population is made up of individuals who if at best have been in american soil for a few months to a year. these people know nothing about "why" we have the 2nd amendment. I cant give you any numbers because this has never happened in precent modern times, and you cant model it based on vermont and alaska, which are 2 very different states compared to the rest of the country.
John Doe can already buy a firearm in the state of Arizona and not have to demonstrate any proficiency at all. In Arizona it is legal to have a firearm in the vehicle as long as it is not concealed (with no permit).
Criminals can stick a gun in their pants anytime they want to and walk around. Are they seeking training?
We should not have to rely on the Gov't to allow us to carry firearms. We have a constitution and Bill of Rights. Responsible gun owners will read and understand the law. They will know where they can and can't go without having a permit.
If you are not smart enough to seek some training irregardless of the law then you will pay the consequences should you be involved in a deadly force situation or should you enter a location where a permit is still required.
As a LEO the whole idea that john doe who has never seen or fired a gun or had any training in weapons safety can legally shove a gun inside his pants and walk about, makes the hairs in the back of my neck stand up.
By the way, I dont remember exactly the numbers on this, its been a while since going through the academy, but a big percentage of "criminals or would be criminals" are usually between the ages of 15-25 and have not been charged with a felony yet. Although putting some one in jail for UCW (unauthorized conceal carry) here in Texas wont get you to prison, it will at least keep some one in jail for a few nights, who obviously did something wrong for an officer to make contact with any way. I think a lot of people resort to the only thing they know when they feel their freedoms are taken away, they will usually looselly mention the 2nd ammendment. They fail to reallice that times are very different now days. Although I am very big on gun ownership and have owend guns and carried (legally) even before being LEO, I still believe there needs to be restrictions and education involved with them. Carrying a gun is just as big a responsibility as driving a car, if not bigger, so what makes people think you shouldnt obtain a license to carry just as you would get a drivers license? A gun just like a car is a tool, both can take lives if used incorrectly. Some of you need to open your eyes about this, just because you took the initiative to self educate your selves on firearms and regularly frequent the range, doesnt mean every one out there does.
Its really hard to model what this law would do for the rest of the country based on those two states. The fact is the divercity in population between vermont and Texas lets say, is very different. I wont mention the city that I work for in Texas but lets say that 90% of the people I come in contact with are illegals and come from thrid world countiries. Their ideas of fireamrs are very diferent than that of you and me. This has nothing to do with race, I consider my self a minority, thats not the point. The point is there a lot of border states that the population is made up of individuals who if at best have been in american soil for a few months to a year. these people know nothing about "why" we have the 2nd amendment. I cant give you any numbers because this has never happened in precent modern times, and you cant model it based on vermont and alaska, which are 2 very different states compared to the rest of the country.
A very reasonable assertion. Headed to breakfast now but I'd like to continue this discussion later. Have a good Sunday.
John Doe can already buy a firearm in the state of Arizona and not have to demonstrate any proficiency at all. In Arizona it is legal to have a firearm in the vehicle as long as it is not concealed (with no permit).
Criminals can stick a gun in their pants anytime they want to and walk around. Are they seeking training?
We should not have to rely on the Gov't to allow us to carry firearms. We have a constitution and Bill of Rights. Responsible gun owners will read and understand the law. They will know where they can and can't go without having a permit.
If you are not smart enough to seek some training irregardless of the law then you will pay the consequences should you be involved in a deadly force situation or should you enter a location where a permit is still required.
It sounds like this is the point you are trying to make: We should do away with laws because criminals are going to break them any way.
As a LEO the whole idea that john doe who has never seen or fired a gun or had any training in weapons safety can legally shove a gun inside his pants and walk about, makes the hairs in the back of my neck stand up.
As a LEO, the whole idea that John (or Jane) Doe would be denied the implements of sport, recreation, investment, and self defense he may need pending completion of administrative and regulatory processes burns my ass.
As a LEO, the whole idea that John (or Jane) Doe would be denied the implements of sport, recreation, investment, and self defense he may need pending completion of administrative and regulatory processes burns my ass.
You can enjoy the sport, recreation, investment, and self defense without any due process or any further paperwork, at least in Texas. The discussion topic at hand is of a no permit conceal carry.
I dont know what kind of LEO you are, but if you hang around patrol for a while yor ideas on gun laws begin to change. The average person doesnt see the kind of carnage we do everyday. Yes we should be afforded the right to carry and defend ourselfs. But just like any other right, like driving a car, there should be some kind of proficiencies in place before letting you walk amongst the streets armed. The whole process is not even all that bad, besides the average $200 cost of the class and paperwork it is virtually painless to a law abiding citizen.
Not all. The point I am trying to make is we have a Constitution that allows us to keep and bear arms. We have strayed from Constitution so much that some people are trying to give the power back. I don't care for elitists which is exactly how your posts are rubbing me.
Why should a police officer be allowed to carry a firearms in another state (even when not on duty) yet citizens who have a valid permit will in some cases not have their permits recognized? Yet, strangely enough my drivers license is good in all 50 states.
We should not have to pay a fee and ask for permission in order to carry a firearm for self defense. Also, the arguments made for permitless carry were in my opinion rational and not based upon emotion. The emotional side comes from those against it who think that the streets of Arizona are going to run red or cops will be getting gunned down by the dozens.
1. You still cannot be in possession or carry a firearm if you are prohibited person.
2. You must still have a valid permit to be in certain locations with your firearm.
3. You can still be held accountable if you act in an unlawful manner.
It sounds like this is the point you are trying to make: We should do away with laws because criminals are going to break them any way.
seems to me you can take the word gun class and trade it with DRIVING class !!!
you can get a lic with no real skills involved and a lot more people have them !
look how many illegals in AZ drive around with out a lic !
look how many get their lic but then really never learn how to drive !
follow you less than a car length on the hwy are texting while driving etc...
I can drive quite well my dad raced cars so I learned how to also :) my kids will also go to a race school and get track time etc..
this way if their friends want to race they might be like me and say sure lets go to autocross day or track day SCCA events etc...
we are like the SCCA for gun people we seek out more knowledge etc..
I WISH people would seek more training for firearms and for driving even more so !!!
I worry more about driving with my family and getting hit by a idiot than being shot by someone who wants to carry concealed !!!!!
every morning we hear the radio taking our girl to school and listen to the list of crashes !
yet you never hear a daily list of people who are shot by people that were carrying concealed !
DAILY I see and witness the aftermath of accidents on our short trip to school !
so to me the whole gun class gun control thing is not working I look at how they handle driving ! the gov has yet to properly TRAIN drivers they will never do it with guns since most in the gov dont want you to have them in the first place
bottom line is people have to want to learn and most of them never will bother
You can enjoy the sport, recreation, investment, and self defense without any due process or any further paperwork, at least in Texas. The discussion topic at hand is of a no permit conceal carry.
Perhaps I was unclear, but my response would also be applicable to no-permit CCW. I support a citizens right to carry without administrative or regulatory processes.
I dont know what kind of LEO you are, but if you hang around patrol for a while yor ideas on gun laws begin to change. The average person doesnt see the kind of carnage we do everyday. Yes we should be afforded the right to carry and defend ourselfs. But just like any other right, like driving a car, there should be some kind of proficiencies in place before letting you walk amongst the streets armed. The whole process is not even all that bad, besides the average $200 cost of the class and paperwork it is virtually painless to a law abiding citizen.
I've hung around patrol for quite awhile now, and seen a good deal of the unspeakable evils human beings bring on each other. I've also seen folks with guns do good things for themselves and others.
Taking calls and seeing ugliness didn't bring me to your view, it took me the opposite direction. Your position asserts that the public should be treated with a presumption of ignorance, ineptitude, or ill-intent rather than trust. I think otherwise.
The argument about proficiencies to drive a car are often made, but they are different rights and needs.
As for costs, $200 and a day or two off work to exercise a fundamental right can be quite a stretch for a law abiding citizen. Especially when you consider that those of minimal to modest means are those that might need self-defense the most.
RogerinTPA
04-18-10, 15:42
Good for AZ. Hopefully, it will eventually spread nation wide, and be done with these silly CCW permits. What is needed is the 2nd Amendment to be unrestrained on a national level and stop making law biding citizens "professional victims".
I think this is a great idea. I hope Ohio adopts a similar law.
I for one am not that scared of my fellow citizen and don't seem to have the same amount of paranoia that some people here do. If you look at the amount of people who have a license and the amount of people who carry daily I'd be willing to bet there's a huge gap in the numbers. I'm sure a lot of people would want to try it, find it uncomfortable or unnecessary and shortly there after give it up. If they haven't taken the time or made the effort to get a permit up until now then they probably don't have a serious motivation to start carrying now.
Skintop makes a very valid point when it comes to the money consideration. Without the necessary monetary funds to allow that person to go through .Gov approved "training", which I think is a joke, they aren't entitled to their 2nd Amendment rights to protect themselves or their loved ones? What about the woman being threatened by their nutjob ex-boyfriend/husband who feels the need to protect herself immediately without either the time or money to take a class?
OTO - With all due respect for your profession, I wonder what your feelings would be in a similar situation to some of the Joe Citizens that you protect? Without the insurance policy and the rights that come with a badge the lens is definitely tinted a different color.
CleverNickname
04-19-10, 00:21
It sounds like this is the point you are trying to make: We should do away with laws because criminals are going to break them any way.
Do you agree with the distinction between "malum prohibitum" and "malum in se"?
This guy makes some good points. http://www.examiner.com/x-25100-Phoenix-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d16-Arizona-constitutional-carry-and-the-Law-of-Unintended-Consequences
As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I am personally pleased to see the passage of this law permitting constitutional carry in Arizona. However, there has been some significant controversy about several of the potential outcomes of this law.
While I won't repeat the arguments for and against the bill, as I have reflected on the passage of SB 1108 that provides for constitutional concealed carry in Arizona, I began to think about what is most often described as the "Law of Unintended Consequences".
For those not familiar with the concept, it refers to the following adage: "Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes."
Unanticipated outcomes can be positive and serendipitous or can be negative or perverse. Let's take a look at some of the potential positive and negative outcomes associated with the new law.
Positives
Arizona residents will no longer be subject to criminal penaties for the inadvertant concealment of an openly carried firearm either on their person or in a vehicle. Further, it eliminates all of the confusion between what constitutes 'open' versus 'concealed' carry.
Arizona residents will no longer be required to attend training, pay a permit fee and be sure to renew their permit every five years in order to carry a concealed firearm.
Crime rates may drop significantly as a result of the new law. Criminals will now be even more unsure about who might be carrying a concealed firearm.
The ability to carry a concealed firearm will be extended from the approximately 2% of the Arizona residents that had a concealed carry permit to the full adult population of the state.
Arizona will become an excellent example of how true 'constitutional carry' can work in a populous and urbanized environment.
Arizona will demonstrate by example that most people who own and carry firearms are 'responsible gun owners' and that draconian gun control laws supported by the anti-gun lobby are not required and are an infringement on the right of American citizens.
Successful implementation of constitutional carry in Arizona may provide a stonger basis of support for national concealed carry legislation which narrowly missed passing in the US Senate last year.
Negatives
Eliminating the permit requirement will have a significant chilling effect on the cottage industry for CCW training in the state. More than 1600 instructors state-wide depended on training revenues for either part-time or full-time wages.
Range revenues may drop statewide at both public and private shooting ranges. As one example, on any given weekend at the Ben Avery Shooting Facility in north Phoenix, more than 10 CCW courses involving 100 or more students are delivered. As the legislation came nearer to passage, CCW course registrations were reportedly off over 75%. At Ben Avery, revenue losses could exceed $100,000 per year based on reduced CCW training. Reduced range revenues could result in increased usage fees or possible closures of under-utilized range facilties.
Lack of a training requirement could result in more citizens running afoul of the firearms laws in Arizona since they may not educate themselves and may not avail themselves of training since it is not required by law.
People wishing to carry a firearm for self-defense may do so without a full understanding of the law regarding the use of physical or deadly force in self defense. Without that knowledge, they may make inappropriate or unjustified uses of force that could have far reaching effects on their lives or the lives of others.
Private property owners concerned about untrained persons carrying concealed weapons may decided to post 'no firearm' notices at the entrance to their establishments in an attempt to reduce their possible liability in the event of an accidental or intention use of a firearm. Ignoring or not noticing such signage could result in a violation of state law that carries significant criminal penalties.
I'm sure there are other potential outcomes both positive and negative that I have not thought of. Let's hear from our readers. If you can think of other possible outcomes, let me hear about it in the comments section...
Eric Shelton
04-21-10, 21:08
Again, learning the law is not the same thing as training. Firearms training is not the purpose of the CCW-I thought you would know this as an instructor.
f***ing misdemeanor?!?! That is EXACTLY what I would be saying if I got up to 6 months in jail and a $2,500 fine! Sounds better than nothing to me, but maybe you like your criminals to live pampered lives.
First, I don't think you're supposed to take exactly what I said about academics vs. training and try to use it as your own argument against me. Seriously, all you did there was make my point over again as if I had said something different. With your "I thought you would know this" statement you're betraying your level of snark does not match your debate skills, sir.
Further, look at the reality of what happens on a misdemeanor charge, and our number of repeat offenders. Saying I like our criminals to live pampered lives really gets my blood boiling and further shows all you have on your side are snide insults rather than reasonable debate. So lemme 'splain this to you:
1) It is still illegal for a felon to own a gun, much less carry it.
2) It should not be illegal for a law abiding citizen to carry concealed without a government permission slip. And if you're labeling somebody as a thug, dirtbag, or criminal because they haven't done something yet, that's the same attitude as the Brady Campaign, your prejudice, and your problem.
3) If this bothers you so much, you should be petitioning for a mandatory class and permit for open carry as well, because the only difference is an article of clothing.
I'm a huge proponent of training. I just fail to see how government involvment improves anything. Whether or not the person carrying is familiar with the laws on justification is irrelevant- by carrying a gun they took on the responsibility. Period. And it's big boy rules and up to them to get an education. Absolutely no different than open carry already was.
OTO27- I understand your POV has shifted from your time on patrol. What I would ask is that you realize what a grossly disproportionate view the nature of your job exposes you to. They say 99.1% of the time (GunFacts.info) a gun is never even fired in self-defense- just the presentation ends the aggressor's action. And who reports a crime that doesn't happen? Nobody's calling you for the cases where a good guy wins without a shot fired, and it's skewing your perception. (No offense intended, honest. Just making the suggestion.)
Eric,
I apologize if you feel that was unduly rude during our debates. I thought I was just dishing a little back.
I really like the article posted recently by Irishluck. I believe it shows arguments for both sides so well that it is worthless for me to continue arguing about the subject. The whole reason I started posting in this thread was because it was so one sided. Some made it seem as if the CCW program was spawned by satan.
Best,
Pete
Some made it seem as if the CCW program was spawned by satan.
Or the government, take your pick. :D
Arizona Knife Preemption here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=641029#post641029. Should they have to get permission, take classes and get a permit for knives too? Arizona kicks ass!!!
I'm pretty danged proud to be an Arizonan right now. We do kick ass!!
Or the government, take your pick. :D
I'd go with the latter, both working with and also comprised (of course) of idealogical idiots. Arizona appears to be headed in the right direction overall. Even better, they are becoming the libertards worst nightmare.
Makes one quite jealous as a Jersey resident. What a bunch of mindless, progressive ilk we have running the show here.
Lord when will it ever end. :rolleyes:
The total lack of firearms knowledge that has been displayed in the previously required training sessions gives me some concern with totally untrained citizens carrying firearms. This is related to the actual use (don't hit someone you are not aiming at) and the legal ramifications of when deadly force may be used.
The solution to both of these concerns is to mandate firearms training in the public school system. This would include classroom training about the legalities and firearms safety. The functioning of different types of firearms should be covered. A field trip to a local range ( if the school does not have it's own) for actual experience of what happens when you pull the trigger.
This should be considered at least as necessary as driver training!!
Dirk Williams
05-01-10, 10:05
I can see some state's bordering AZ jumping on this for the right reasons.
Make no mistake a line has been drawn in cement. This is gonna be interesting. Im frankly impressed that a group of elected officials had the spine/balls to do the right thing.
D Williams
Thats true, criminals will always carry no matter what, the only problem with this is that we cant put them in jail now!
You shouldn't be able to "put them in jail" for that in the first place. Sorry.
You can enjoy the sport, recreation, investment, and self defense without any due process or any further paperwork, at least in Texas. The discussion topic at hand is of a no permit conceal carry.
Self-defense you say? Did I fall asleep for a few years and miss Texas passing unrestricted open carry? Last I checked if you are walking down a street in Houston for instance you don't have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense unless you have a government-issued permission slip in your wallet.
I dont know what kind of LEO you are, but if you hang around patrol for a while yor ideas on gun laws begin to change. The average person doesnt see the kind of carnage we do everyday. Yes we should be afforded the right to carry and defend ourselfs. But just like any other right, like driving a car, there should be some kind of proficiencies in place before letting you walk amongst the streets armed. The whole process is not even all that bad, besides the average $200 cost of the class and paperwork it is virtually painless to a law abiding citizen.
The average person may not see "carnage" everyday, but unless I'm horribly mistaken a large part of your job with respect to that "carnage" is responding when that "carnage" happens to an "average person". The fact that your job (at least that's what you attribute it to) has given you a perspective in the direction of less freedom a.) doesn't mean your right and b.) doesn't mean that every LEO holds the same perspective. I have two friends who were relatively neutral on 2A issues prior to becoming deputy sheriffs in a large county in Central Florida. They now are moving in the direction of understanding that when Joe Schmo encounters the dregs of society, the cops ain't always around right away.
This is the second time I've posted this in response to something you've written, but here goes again:
We should err on the side of liberty and recognize liberty is not about guaranteeing our safety, or the efficiency or comfort of government agents...
Starts this Thursday 7/29/10. http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/cop_shop/article_e1b91aac-967b-11df-b468-001cc4c03286.html
In less than a week, Arizona residents will be allowed to carry a gun in their pocket or purse without needing paperwork to do so.
Senate Bill 1108, which allows people to carry concealed guns with no permit or safety training, takes effect on July 29, the same day controversial immigration legislation is scheduled to begin enforcement. It makes Arizona the third state behind Alaska and Vermont, all supportive of gun rights, to enact a law that raises concerns for law enforcement.
“It’s disconcerting,” said Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead. “The fact that anyone can walk around and carry a gun without training is disconcerting. We don’t let our police officers walk around with a gun without training. Some people will start shoving a gun down their pants and shoot themselves.”
SB 1108, sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 16. People can carry guns without a permit, but still will not be allowed to take a gun into a bar or restaurant without one, as most such establishments prohibit them anyway.
The law also requires police officers to ask people they pull over or apprehend whether they have any weapons, and if the person says no and is carrying a weapon they still can be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and providing false information to a law enforcement officer — a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and possibly jail time.
Bar owners throughout the East Valley already have a no-guns policy in place, despite the state law requiring permits for people who carry guns into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol.
Phil Marcus has been in the bar business for 15 years in Arizona and owns three bars, Mesa’s Hambone Sports Bar and Grill at 903 W. Main St., one in Phoenix and one in Surprise.
“My particular preference is, I don’t allow anyone in my bar with a gun unless you’re an on-duty police officer,” Marcus said. “I don’t think the law is going to create a bad or dangerous atmosphere. Criminals are going to do whatever they want, and honest people are going to abide by the law.” Idiot exposed.
At Groggy’s, 2207 W. Main St., Mesa, the no-gun policy also exists, but a bartender there believes people might start trying to bring in guns early on with the law going into effect. However, once the patrons realize they can’t get in with a gun, she believes things will remain the same.
“If people don’t know the law, they might think they’re allowed to bring in a gun, but they’re not,” said Bonnie Harness, who has been a waitress at Groggy’s for six years. “The law doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it will make much of a difference, but we don’t want people in here with guns getting drunk.”
The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, the state police union that oversees 38 different lodges and represents about 7,000 members, opposed the law. The group’s president says it was not needed in a state that already was lenient in issuing concealed weapons permits to gun owners with minimal fingerprint and background checks. The law also prohibits federal regulations to apply on firearms that were manufactured in Arizona, and blocks cities from applying their own laws against people carrying concealed weapons.
“The law now makes requirements and training to carry a gun in Arizona nonexistent,” said Sgt. John Ortolana, president of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police. “I think the law was done to appease the gun lobby. I’m a firm believer in Second Amendment rights, but those rights come with responsibility. There will be people carrying firearms that have no clue about how to operate one, or the problems that can be caused by not knowing how to operate one. Some idiot is going to do something egregious, and there’s going to be an outcry of ‘How could this happen?’ ”
Meanwhile, gun sales remain steady at Glockmeister Glock-Gun Distributor Sales in Mesa, and more people have been coming in to look at smaller handguns, said owner Greg Wolff. The shop sells and distributes firearms to law enforcement officers as well as private owners.
“People are excited about the law and have been calling about it,” he said.
Wolff, a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, said the law “looks good on its face,” but he is concerned about people being able to carry guns without some kind of safety training. “A lot more people are going to carry guns,” he said. “It’s people who have had a gun sitting in a drawer for about 10 years who think they can just (start) carrying it around that I’m worried about.”
Although Arizona will continue its gun permit process through the Department of Public Safety, having a concealed permit will be optional. There were 158,170 active permits issued as of July 11 — up 3,891 since April 4, according to DPS figures.
Although people no longer are required to have permits if they are carrying a concealed weapon and are not required to take a gun safety course if they carry a gun, they still cannot carry a concealed gun across state lines, according to DPS spokesman Robert Bailey.
“Just because we pass a law in Arizona, doesn’t mean they recognize it everywhere else,” Bailey said. “People can still get permits if they want to take a concealed weapon across state lines or take a weapons course.”
There are 34 other states that provide reciprocity by allowing people from Arizona to carry a concealed weapon if they have a permit, according to Pearce.
The legislator said the law is constitutional and a “great bill” for law-abiding citizens. It also increases felonies for criminals carrying guns, Pearce said.
“I take no prisoners when it comes to peoples’ civil liberties and constitutional rights,” he said.
The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police’s Mesa Lodge No. 9 said like every other new law enacted, they will enforce it.
Asking people who are pulled over or apprehended if they are carrying any weapons is something officers already are doing and should be doing all the time anyway, said lodge president Bryan Soller.
“This won’t change the way we do business, but personally, I didn’t think the law was necessary,” Soller said. “We believe it’s a tool that’s been taken away from us. Before, if we asked someone if they were carrying a gun and they said yes, but didn’t have a permit, we could charge them with having a concealed weapon without a permit. Criminals and gang members are going to carry a gun anyway, and they’re the ones who wouldn’t tell you if they were.”
GermanSynergy
07-25-10, 16:15
Many Maryland gun owners subscribe to the Fudd mentality. Every time I used to go to ranges here you'd run into shotgun/rifle toting fudds (sometime union members that vote straight ticket Democrat) that glowered at anyone with an EBR or non black powder handgun. It got to the point that I go to ranges out of state (NRA Range FTW) now.
I actually think your views are shared by many (though I disagree & would prefer the entire US have "Vermont" style carry laws).
I grew up in MD where permits are virtually NEVER granted. I have asked many Marylanders 2 questions:
I first ask: 1) Would they like Maryland to adopt "shall issue" as have many states? The answer is always "YES!"
Then, I explain to them just how easy it was to get my CCW permit in VA (here, you can simply present your military discharge document, or take an online course, or present the course cert from a 4 hour NRA basic pistol class I took in New York with no range requirement). We do not have specific requirements as to what qualifies as "training." It CAN be quite simple/short.
2) I then ask: would they want MD to adopt the same "shall issue" law as VA??
At this point, most of them do NOT feel comfortable with, as they put it: "making it THAT easy to carry." Their rational is that more training is required. Since they do not have any experience with concealled carry, they have no basis for understanding what works, and what does not. I believe Vermont's system works just fine, and I'm not too bothered by VA either. My Maryland friends, however, seem horrified by the prospect of Vermont's laws coming to MD. And these are gunowners!
And I agree that more training IS required. It is not possible to over-train when trainign to protect the lives of your family or yourself. I only object to letting the STATE decide that issue over the individual citizen deciding for her/himself.
Were those folks in your class unprepared? Perhaps, but they still own guns. If we are, as a nation, going to recognize people's rights to own guns, we ought to recognize their right to carry - with all that brings with it. The answer is get more folks to learn basic safety & train. Governemnt restrictions are not the answer.
Thank you for sharing your views. Good discussion.
I did the two day Arizona CCW class about 10 years ago. I did the new one day class about a year ago. Normally you can renew but I was overseas working and missed the renewal period so I had to take the new class. Anyway in both cases the level of ignorance among most of my classmates as to basic firearm safety, operation, and marksmanship was astounding. Not to mention ignorance of the law as to when you can and cannot shoot.
I can see some state's bordering AZ jumping on this for the right reasons.
Make no mistake a line has been drawn in cement. This is gonna be interesting. Im frankly impressed that a group of elected officials had the spine/balls to do the right thing.
D Williams
I can assure you as an Arizona resident that they are doing nothing more than pandering for votes. it has nothing to do with courage on their part.
That won't be a good thing. We already have a national permit, it's called the 2nd Amendment.
The bill that was just passed was about not requiring a permit to CC or OC. Did you miss the point?
It's already legal in Arizona to open carry without a permit.
Can't wait for 7/29.
Blood in the streets, cats and dogs getting along, crushing of zee enemies, and the lamination of the wimmins.
Can't wait for 7/29.
Blood in the streets, cats and dogs getting along, crushing of zee enemies, and the lamination of the wimmins.
You forgot the part about Rosie ODonnell becoming hawt in there
7/29 is my Bday :) what a gift :)
yes you can thank me since its what I asked for :)
What a coincidence. So is mine.
7/29 is my Bday :) what a gift :)
yes you can thank me since its what I asked for :)
7/29 is my Bday :) what a gift :)
What a coincidence. So is mine.
Virtual beverages of your choice on me.
Can't wait for 7/29.
Blood in the streets, cats and dogs getting along, crushing of zee enemies, and the lamination of the wimmins.
Look! Bloody streets, and laminated wimmins! LINK (http://www.life.com/image/103119077/in-carousel/12421)
parishioner
07-29-10, 18:03
nvm......
That's it, I'm moving. I was back and forth on whether I could stand the heat of AZ, but this makes it easier.
Hell, its dry heat:D That way when you go out of your house with your gun, it doesnt draw moisture:p Thats one thing I hate, coming out of my house/truck thats air conditioned and my gun becoming wet...... This law should be universal through all states IMHO. Although I would like to have a competency test so retards cant carry, but if you enact something like that, how far will the fed. gov. or even state gov. take it? Their logic is: inch=mile and a half
I genuinely think that most people are more concerned about SB 1070 than the concealed carry bill going into effect, it's definitely on the back burner. Initially the concealed carry going into effect may start an upsurge of people who want to "give it a try" but anyone who's serious about concealed carry will most likely get a permit, due to restrictions, or already has one. I'm not opposed to this at all but it is definitely a niche market law for lack of a better term.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.