Concealed Weapons With No Permits Nearly OK In Arizona. - Polidicks

[quote] 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 [/quote] [url=http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ef949487-1f99-5ea6-96bc-988124f6b72b.html]Rape Sauce[/url] :clint: Don't tred on me partner.

Good

Finally, some good news.

How is this good? Shouldn't someone have a permit before they carry a dangerous weapon?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257573]How is this good? Shouldn't someone have a permit before they carry a dangerous weapon?[/QUOTE] What fun is that then?...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257573]How is this good? Shouldn't someone have a permit before they carry a dangerous weapon?[/QUOTE] You don't need a permit to carry a firearm. You need a permit to conceal it. Ownership of a firearm is a right in this country, not a privilege. You do not need to prove yourself to anyone to own one.

:ohdear:

[QUOTE=Lankist;21257588]You don't need a permit to carry a firearm. You need a permit to conceal it. Ownership of a firearm is a right in this country, not a privilege. You do not need to prove yourself to anyone to own one.[/QUOTE] That's what I meant, to conceal it. And of course it's a right to own a firearm, but is it a right to be allowed to conceal it on yourself?

[QUOTE=Lankist;21257588]You don't need a permit to carry a firearm. You need a permit to conceal it. Ownership of a firearm is a right in this country, not a privilege. You do not need to prove yourself to anyone to own one.[/QUOTE] They're regulated though. A convicted felon, etc. cannot legally possess one. So yes, you have to prove yourself to a DEGREE in order to legally possess a firearm.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257620]That's what I meant, to conceal it. And of course it's a right to own a firearm, but is it a right to be allowed to conceal it on yourself?[/QUOTE] Because once you go down that road you open a wide possibility of the violation of that right. First it was concealed carry made illegal, because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban clip sizes larger than 10 bullets, because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban any ammunition above a certain caliber, because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban "assault weapons," i.e. weapons that meet every civilian standard but just so happen to look intimidating. Because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban every gun entirely but a small-caliber revolver you are not allowed to carry and not allowed to have ammunition for (D.C.) Because all of THAT wasn't a right. [editline]09:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721;21257633]They're regulated though. A convicted felon, etc. cannot legally possess one. So yes, you have to prove yourself to a DEGREE in order to legally possess a firearm.[/QUOTE] Compulsory waiting periods and background checks do not keep a law abiding citizen from buying a gun, they merely delay them for arguable reasons. But the fact of the matter is, if you are a citizen with no felonies on your record, the government CANNOT stop you from buying a gun. For instance, most states have a limit on how long they can take on the background checks. If the background check takes longer between X amount of days, typically 3, then you can buy your gun without the check after those days have passed.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257620]That's what I meant, to conceal it. And of course it's a right to own a firearm, but is it a right to be allowed to conceal it on yourself?[/QUOTE] Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Look at the Assault Weapons Ban and what a joke that was. Look at the handgun ban that in D.C. that was eventually OVERTURNED by the Supreme Court because it was ruled unconstitutional.

It was overturned but handguns are still effectively banned given last I checked you can only have a six-shooter with no ammo. When a government can't ban something, they instead make it completely impossible to obtain and use it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;21257785]It was overturned but handguns are still effectively banned given last I checked you can only have a six-shooter with no ammo.[/QUOTE] :wtc: I'll have to look it up.

[QUOTE=Lankist;21257673]Because once you go down that road you open a wide possibility of the violation of that right. First it was concealed carry made illegal, because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban clip sizes larger than 10 bullets, because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban any ammunition above a certain caliber, because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban "assault weapons," i.e. weapons that meet every civilian standard but just so happen to look intimidating. Because THAT'S not a right. Then they ban every gun entirely but a small-caliber revolver you are not allowed to carry and not allowed to have ammunition for (D.C.) Because all of THAT wasn't a right. [/QUOTE] I understand your point. I just wouldn't feel comfortable walking around knowing that any John Doe can legally carry a firearm on him. However, it isn't really like making it illegal would stop criminals from carrying one anyways. Also, the constitution isn't there to protect me from feeling uncomfortable, just to protect my rights.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257916]I understand your point. I just wouldn't feel comfortable walking around knowing that any John Doe can legally carry a firearm on him. However, it isn't really like making it illegal would stop criminals from carrying one anyways. Also, the constitution isn't there to protect me from feeling uncomfortable, just to protect my rights.[/QUOTE] Do you feel uncomfortable when you're next to a police officer?

[QUOTE=JDK721;21257930]Do you feel uncomfortable when you're next to a police officer?[/QUOTE] Yea, I do actually.

[QUOTE=Lankist;21257785]It was overturned but handguns are still effectively banned given last I checked you can only have a six-shooter with no ammo. When a government can't ban something, they instead make it completely impossible to obtain and use it.[/QUOTE] Can't you still carry a few rounds in another pocket/vehicle?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257945]Yea, I do actually.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21257573]How is this good? Shouldn't someone have a permit before they carry a dangerous weapon?[/QUOTE] People who intend to break the law are not going to get a permit. This honestly isn't going to matter one bit as far as criminals are concerned. Having a permit for it just clears up some of the mess caused by random citizens toting guns for their own protection.

[QUOTE=JDK721;21257958]Why?[/QUOTE] Probably because I don't particularly trust them, and that coupled with the fact they have a gun and the power to arrest me make me uncomfortable. Although there is one police officer I know who is a good guy and I don't feel even mildly uncomfortable around him.

[QUOTE=JDK721;21257958]Why?[/QUOTE] Because all cops are out to get you. On a serious note, I think that concealed weapon licences are a bit stupid, because a criminal isn't going to get a licence anyways.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;21257953]Can't you still carry a few rounds in another pocket/vehicle?[/QUOTE] in DC you aren't allowed to carry it with you at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21258012]Probably because I don't particularly trust them, and that coupled with the fact they have a gun and the power to arrest me make me uncomfortable. Although there is one police officer I know who is a good guy and I don't feel even mildly uncomfortable around him.[/QUOTE] But just regarding the gun. Why does a law abiding citizen carrying a gun make you feel uncomfortable?

[QUOTE=Lankist;21257588]You don't need a permit to carry a firearm. You need a permit to conceal it. Ownership of a firearm is a right in this country, not a privilege. You do not need to prove yourself to anyone to own one.[/QUOTE] Well you do have to prove yourself, but within reasonable bounds which surely you understand.

It's damn near fucking impossible to get a concealed weapons permit in California. All gun laws do is impose on our rights. Just another way for big brother to keep their thumb on us.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;21258012]Probably because I don't particularly trust them, and that coupled with the fact they have a gun and the power to arrest me make me uncomfortable. Although there is one police officer I know who is a good guy and I don't feel even mildly uncomfortable around him.[/QUOTE] They can't arrest you without probable cause. If they do, you can fuck the cop over in court.

Lets look at the pros and cons of needing a permit. In this scenario lets say the robber has a knife. 1. Robber noticed you down the street, plans to threaten and steal from you. 2. He notices the gun at your hip, so instead he sneaks up, kills you and takes your money. 1. Robber notices you down the street, doesn't see a gun, so he approaches and threatens you. 2. *BANG* 3. You win. New scenario. In this scenario a band of gang members are going to shoot you. 1. The gang members see your gun, take cover and begin to fire. Possibly killing many innocents in the process. 1. The gang members harass you before doing the deed, and as their busy talking. 2. *BANG* 3. You win. There is no downside to not needing a permit because the bad guys will do it anyway. Guns are good for people. There was a small town in the East (might have been Michigan ) I heard about that made it a law for every home to contain at least one firearm..........the crime rate dropped %75.

[QUOTE=RukUS;21258241]Lets look at the pros and cons of needing a permit. In this scenario lets say the robber has a knife. 1. Robber noticed you down the street, plans to threaten and steal from you. 2. He notices the gun at your hip, so instead he sneaks up, kills you and takes your money. 1. Robber notices you down the street, doesn't see a gun, so he approaches and threatens you. 2. *BANG* 3. You win. New scenario. In this scenario a band of gang members are going to shoot you. 1. The gang members see your gun, take cover and begin to fire. Possibly killing many innocents in the process. 1. The gang members harass you before doing the deed, and as their busy talking. 2. *BANG* 3. You win. _______________________________ There is no downside to not needing a permit because the bad guys will do it anyway.[/QUOTE] You sound like you are not very old at all.

What are Arizona's laws regarding concealed carry while intoxicated?

Aren't there pretty harsh consequences to actually shooting someone in self defense except in extreme circumstances?