SIG Sauer 556 Arms Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_ ... ns_arizona

Article: By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport And Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writers

PHOENIX – Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit. The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts 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, a Republican, 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.

A Democratic leader, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, of Phoenix, said the bill deprives law enforcement of a tool "to separate good guys from the bad guys." With a permit requirement, police encountering a person with a concealed gun but no permit had reason to suspect that person was not a law-abiding citizen, she said. The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group that lobbied for passage of the "constitutional carry" bill, said gun owners foregoing permits still should get training. "The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the responsibility that comes with it," the group said. 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Zeus said:
+1000000 Now if only our dumbass state would allow CCW :cry:
One thing I can say is that while this is a strong case for freedom, and individual rights that I fully believe in, I benefited from the CCW training, understanding the laws, responsibility it carries, and about handguns in general. The law will make criminals think twice and will be good overall for the state in crime prevention. The unfortunate part is that you will never know how much was prevented due to the crime never being initiated. What we will hear about, will be the mistakes & stupidity of those who don't carry responsibly. The liberal press will be waiting to pounce.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
825 Posts
I'm not sure if this is a good idea. When I look at what a concealed carry law accomplishes, there are several things:

1. It disarms the law abiding citizen, without disarming criminals.
2. It might disarm some questionable folks. Do 100% of guys selling drugs carry? Probably not, If you now make it legal, will that percentage go up .... probably.
3. Will accidental shootings go up? Will incidents of inappropriate use of deadly force go up? Probably to both.

No law means no obligation to get training. Having a law will mean some law abiding citizens won't carry.

Net, I think the solution is to have a law that is very friendly and pro-gun, ie a 'shall issue' directive, that makes it easy to get a permit, but that does have a requirement to meet a competency test.

Having some minimum requirement to get a permit will mean that people who are lazy and have no training will not be allowed to carry, but I'm not sure I want those people carrying anyhow.

Art
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
People who don't train are more likely to hurt themselves not others. I think it's a good idea. We issue drivers licenses but a lot of folks still don't learn how to drive properly. If the penalty for crashing your car was as severe as a negligent discharge of a firearm, there would be much less accidents. Most people who would carry would get proper training. We have OC here and almost no one does it because they are scared of the penalty for improper carry and not confident that they could carry safely. The rest just don't care. I think most people who would carry would be trained. By the way how does it disarm the law abiding citizen? I totally don't follow that one. Most drug dealers have a record before they are even 21 so legally the couldn't carry anyway. I have never heard of a good law abiding person that just turns 21 and says "Hey I think I'll start pedaling dope."
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
825 Posts
Not sure of your source of data for people being more likely to hurt themselves than others ... what is the split, and what risk should others agree to take on by letting some untrained yahoo walk around with a deadly weapon he does not know how to use.

I'm not in agreement that this is a penalty thing - no one goes out and plans to have an accident. I imagine most accidents happen when someone thinks they know what they are doing, rather than because someone knowingly takes a riks. After all, when you are ignorant, you don't know what you don't know.

Most/Many/Some drug dealers do have records, but not 100% of them. Some 21 year olds can buy guns, and do engage in illegal activities.

My comment about disarming law abiding citizens was an assumption that any restriction a carry law creates, would only apply to law abiding citizens, on the basis that criminals would not comply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
About the "More drug dealers will carry" thing
Most States have laws making carrying a weapon during the commission of a crime a very serious offense. Dealing drugs would be a crime so for them to carry would be just as illegal as it was before this law was passed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
This is an excellent law for Arizona, put the responsibility back in the hands of the citizens where it belongs. Nanny States, always turn into tyrannies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
AZ Carry Law

As a resident of AZ I am still up in the air if this is a good idea or not . I can see both sides of the argument. I guess time will tell if this was a good idea or not. :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
samnev, Not sure I would be worried, Random acts of gun violence don't increase when concealed carry increases, the opposite is true. There of course will be a novelty factor, and folks will carry just because they can,to this but that will soon wear off and things will normalize. I remember of a South American country where everyone carried, good bad and ugly, now only the bad can carry and its awful, back then it was fine, real fine, even when human life meant little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
scoom said:
A Democratic leader, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, of Phoenix, said the bill deprives law enforcement of a tool "to separate good guys from the bad guys." With a permit requirement, police encountering a person with a concealed gun but no permit had reason to suspect that person was not a law-abiding citizen, she said.
Hey Krysten, they're trying to use the same reason here in Chicago for banning handguns. Tell your police this: people are innocent until proven guilty. Oh and, if guy points gun at cop - he's a bad one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
911 Posts
Re: AZ Carry Law

samnev said:
As a resident of AZ I am still up in the air if this is a good idea or not . I can see both sides of the argument. I guess time will tell if this was a good idea or not. :?:
Same here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Well i guess I'll jump in as a resident of Arizona in full favor of this! Funny I still have my CCW and will continue to renew it as I like to eat at a lot of resturaunts that serve alcohol (a requirement) and I like that I don't have to NICS before buying a new toy.

Vermont and Alaska already have this. Actually Vermont has always had this. And I think, shy of a few cases of abuse where some jackass misbehaves, that its not going to have any real changes from the way things currently are.

The permits still exist, so we still have reciprocity, we still encourage people to get training and to learn the law. But there's a reason so many of us were in favor of this.

Let Freedom RING! :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
scoom said:
One thing I can say is that while this is a strong case for freedom, and individual rights that I fully believe in, I benefited from the CCW training, understanding the laws, responsibility it carries, and about handguns in general. The law will make criminals think twice and will be good overall for the state in crime prevention. The unfortunate part is that you will never know how much was prevented due to the crime never being initiated. What we will hear about, will be the mistakes & stupidity of those who don't carry responsibly. The liberal press will be waiting to pounce.
Your post summed up my thoughts perfectly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
I believe it’s important for law abiding citizens that want to carry concealed understand the ramifications of using deadly force in self-defense. Any State Prosecutor worth their weight will bypass the first three self-defense assessments; did the BG have the Ability to harm, did the BG have an Opportunity to harm, did you feel in Jeopardy (analysis of fear), and jump straight to Preclusion. Did the CCW permit holder do everything possible to avoid having to fire? Once the Prosecutor shows this they will look at what is called the F.B.I. Rule of Three. Did it last longer than 3 seconds? (the average self-defense duration). Did the CCW permit holder fire more than 3 rounds? (any more is questionable as to intent unless confronted by multiple attackers). Did the confrontation happen within 3 yards? (the average range for self-defense).

For states that allow CC without a permit, I’m all for those states requiring the issuance of a booklet with each handgun purchase that outlines the above (or a signature that they are aware of the 4 steps of self-defense and the F.B.I. Rule of 3) and the ramifications for the concealed carrier should they decide to use deadly force. I would hope that understanding what it takes not to go to jail while defending yourself would urge them to get additional training and practice. The 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege like driving a car, hence legally requiring training.

As for Open Carry, I’m not a proponent. It’s like letting the bad guy know your Achilles heel. If the BG knows ahead of time what I have and how to take me down, that’s the BG’s advantage not mine. He’ll see me coming miles away before I know he’s coming for me.

After re-reading the article, I’m concerned that the legislation allows the police officer the right to “temporarily take my firearm away during conversation.â€
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Just an FYI in regards to your comment about the gun being taken from the individual if the officer deems necessary. In Arizona they already have the ability to do just that. Even for something so simple as a traffic stop. Now most officers, even if your OC'ing without a license or CCW will not disarm you. But some do. Nothing changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
i'm less worried about 21 yr olds. And more worried about some (not all) older women who just bought their first handgun to keep in their purse. Without training or without brains...they leave the purse unattended or out of reach.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top