Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

AZ new concealed carry law!!!! No permit?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by clearconscience, Apr 8, 2010.

  1. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    7,020
    PHOENIX – 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.

    The legislation, approved by the House 36-19 without discussion, would make it legal for most U.S. citizens 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required. 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.

    Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the measure, said last week that he added changes requested by Gov. Jan Brewer's office, an indication that she is likely to sign it. The governor can sign or veto the measure, or allow it to become law without action.

    If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons. Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states — Illinois and Wisconsin — prohibit them altogether.

    Supporters say gun restrictions only affect people who want to follow the rules because criminals will carry hidden guns regardless of the law. Nearly all adults can carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and they shouldn't face additional restrictions when they want to hide the weapon, supporters argue.

    "What's dangerous is when they're in criminals' hands, not citizens' hands," said Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, a bill sponsor.

    Opponents argue legalizing concealed weapons will make it easier for criminals to carry them, endangering police. They also worry the bill would lead to more accidental gun discharges by people not adequately trained in firearm safety.

    "We wouldn't give people driver's licenses without requiring training or testing. Why would we give people the ability to carry a concealed weapon anywhere?" said Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson.

    There are more than 154,000 active concealed weapon permits in Arizona.

    Under the measure, Arizonans would still be subject to the background checks federal law requires when buying firearms from a store. People carrying a concealed weapon would be required to tell a police officer if asked, and the officer could temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the gun carrier.

    Under the legislation, permits still could be obtained on an optional basis so Arizonans could carry concealed weapons in states with reciprocity agreements. Permits also would be required to carry weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

    With the elevation of Brewer to the governor's office, Arizona gun-rights advocates have had a wave of success over the past two years.

    The state in 2009 loosened its gun laws to lift a ban on guns in establishments that serve alcohol, although gun-bearers still cannot drink alcohol and establishments can ban firearms.

    Brewer, a Republican who took office in January 2009, signed that measure into law. Her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, vetoed several measures pushed by gun-rights supporters before resigning to run the U.S. Homeland Security Department.

    On Monday, Brewer signed two bills loosening gun restrictions. One bill broadened the state's current restrictions on local governments' ability to regulate or tax guns and ammunition.

    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.
     
  2. Dyjital

    Dyjital Albany, Ore Flavorite Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    4,873
    Likes Received:
    5,773
    WOW!!!!

    Guess buying a Ruger in Az is a good thing.
     
  3. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    7,020
    No kidding, my friend was talking about moving to AZ and I thought he was crazy, but now I might share a uhaul with him.
     
  4. KTM530XCW

    KTM530XCW Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    504
    Taking back America!
     
  5. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    Awesome.. we are winning, folks..!
     
  6. Spray-n-pray

    Spray-n-pray Battle Ground Moderator Staff Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,028
    Not so crazy, is it?
     
  7. Benny503

    Benny503 Grants Pass Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    267
    I believe that whomever carry have to have at least little training or knowledge about handguns. Open for everyone without the training is making me nervous. Maybe just me!!!
     
  8. MountainBear

    MountainBear Sweet Home, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,646
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    I really like the limitations on the bill. I like still requiring a permit in bars and still issuing them to keep up reciprocity agreements. The requirement for a permit in bars just makes me think it might make people think before carrying and drinking. Or at least understand the repercussions of what might happen if they do choose to drink and carry. In an ideal world, I wouldn't support any gun laws, but unfortunately, this world isn't ideal, so there are a few things to remind people not to be dumb that I support.
     
  9. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    127
    Great news. Real Carry, and BATF Nullification in the same session.

    I note that the officer has the option of taking possession of a carried weapon during a stop... but nothing making it mandatory, and nothing requiring the officer to call in the serial number and run a check on the weapon..... while the folk at the other end of the radio are making a permanent record of that weapon's description and who was carrying it, along with all that person's information... de facto gun registration. THAT is the new "real carry" law in Alaska..... the gun grabbers got one past the legislative process there. Yup, they did.

    Glad to see Arizona doing well. May it continue, and spread like a virus......
     
  10. phathom

    phathom Vancouver, WA Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    20
    That is just plain awesome. Glad to see we're still making some progress in the good fight for our rights back. I'm glad that in Oregon, our permits are now accepted by a total of 15 states including Oregon, where when I took my CHL class earlier this year, it was only 12.
    Now if only California would loosen up, the rest of the states might follow suit as they set a big example (good or bad) on a lot of things.
     
  11. gixxer1974

    gixxer1974 Portlad Oregon Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    1
    In an Ideal world people would seek out training, that being said I got my first CHL in WA state 10 yearas ago, and they require nothing. No training, no instruction, just fill out the 1 page paper, get you fingerprints, pay and wait for the background check. I don't see that as being any different than "Alaska carry" or open carry. It has worked in Alaska and Vermont for years so why would you feel any different about it in Arizona?

    Please don't think I am trying to knock your opinion or your feelings about this, But I have lived and carried in a state where you need no training at all(WA), a state where you have to qualify with each and every gun you want to carry and have seperate permits for each(NV), and a state where you have to sit through a 4 hour class that teaches a small portion of gun safety and an even smaller amount of the legal info (OR) and have found the only difference was how much time and money I was out of pocket before I got my permit.

    And as far as the legal info goes, some of what I was tought in oregon was outdated and wrong at the time it was told to me, and some has probably changed since the class. same goes for the class I had in Nevada. And 20 years from now I will still be carrying, and if I rely on what little "Legal Advise and Instruction" I got in those classes it will be way out of date. so whats the point?

    I agree everyone who carries should get training and try to keep up on the law and practice, but a state permit and the "required training" are no substitute for a true desire to learn and specific schooling(OFA, Thunder Ranch, Shoot Right, Gunsite) Washington is not the only state to require no training, just the closest. So does it make you nervous to go up there?
     
  12. greydog111

    greydog111 peoples repubilik of Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    80
    Stand on the Cali-Az border and thumb your nose at em. NEENER NEENER!!
    Greydog.:laugh:

    P.S. The gubmint has no business requiring training to own, carry, or use a firearm. That being said, it just makes sense to get training!
     
  13. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

    Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

    You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

    You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

    And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

    YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

    We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

    LIVE FREE OR DIE!
     
  14. xstayfrostyx

    xstayfrostyx PDX Member

    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bravo, Arizona... nice work.

    It's really encouraging to see the reassertion of state's rights movement continue to gain momentum in large-scale, meaningful ways which force the fed to raise an eyebrow and take notice.
     
  15. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    127
    Gixxer and Dawgs have it right.... the Second Ammendment does not GIVE us the right to keep and bear arms, it merely enshrines the fact we already have it, then goes one HUGE step further and says that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No qualifiers, no restrictions (other than, in another part of the Consititution, a felon forfeits certain rights otherwise accruing to him, the right to arms amongst them, and voting).

    In the early 1800's the Supreme Court ruled, rightly, that for any jurisdiction to levy a "poll tax", requiring a payment before voting, was an unconstitutional infringement on a man's right to vote in free and open elections. If the payment of a dollar or two was considered an "infringement" on one's right to vote, IF that silly band of black robed legislators were to apply the SAME logic and values to the issue of arms, there is only one way they could possibly decide. The present commonly accepted system of permits, fees, waiting periods, required mickeymouse training, limits on purchases, lists of "approved" weapons, even age restrictions, no carry in bars or restaurants or post offices or schools or vehicles.......

    interesting how, in less than two hundred years, the meaning of "infringe" has changed so fundamentally.

    Arizona have taken a huge step in the right direction on two fronts: REAL carry, and "Feds, butt out of in-state gun regulationns". So far, three states with Real Carry, and I think its seven on Firearms Freedom acts. Several more have such legislation proposed. Iowa's attempt got shot down by a crooked committee chairman who refused to allow it a hearing. He's up for reelection come November. There is a HUGE campaign to unseat him, replacing him with a man who can read the Consitution. Maybe next session?

    Washington's Firearms Freedom act got shot down, too, last I heard. Hopefully there will be a housecleaning in November, and we can seat some candidates who will promote it, and remove the roadblocks. There is a real rift in our state legislature... two diametrically opposed factions, one very pro-big-state-government, the other pro the citizen's rights and freedoms.
     
  16. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    The second you start requiring "training" you allow for infringement of our natural rights.. it's a doorway to total loss of our liberties

    Should we next require a test for our 1st amendment rights? They can have deadly consequences, as well
     
  17. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    California is a lost cause unless we invade and take over and do some serious housecleaning
     
  18. phathom

    phathom Vancouver, WA Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    20
    I think training shouldn't be required, but should be strongly recommended, but then again who's to say what kind of training is right for basic competency? Some people (I know a lot of us) have been raised around guns and even though it's not formal, have substantial training to safely handle it, without being required by the government to take additional training in order to exercise our rights.
     
  19. Contract_Pilot

    Contract_Pilot Vancouver, Washington Active Member

    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    103
    Ummm???

    It is a privilege to drive a car, baring arms is a right do they not know that!!
     
  20. onearmedswordsman

    onearmedswordsman Hillsboro, OR Member

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wonder if it also applies to full auto firearms. I'd move tomorrow :D Montana explicitly removed full auto from their FFA legislation.:(