Concealed Carry without Permit Bill Signed by Governor

[gvaldeg1]

Today Arizona Senate Bill 1108 which provides for concealed carry without a permit was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.

Link Removed

Arizona thus joins Alaska and Vermont which are the only other states to allow concealed carry without a permit. The Arizona CCW program will still be active and Arizona will continue to issue CCW permits which are needed for concealed carry in Arizona in establishments that serve alcohol or for concealed carry in other states which recognize the Arizona permit. The law will take effect 90 days from the close of the current legislative session. In all likelihood, it will go into effect in September.

 

[buckslayer]

I wish Minnesota would allow us to carry without a permit. That or make a lifetime license.

 

[NDS]

Oh Yes! Very good news. Hopefully, when the sky does not fall, Constitutional Carry proponents can use this to further degrade the gun-control arguments in their own states.

It's too bad Nevada politicians (and voters) suck California *** too vigorously to ever consider Constitutional freedoms as a viable choice for this state.

 

[colt4me]

Today Arizona Senate Bill 1108 which provides for concealed carry without a permit was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.

Link Removed

Arizona thus joins Alaska and Vermont which are the only other states to allow concealed carry without a permit. The Arizona CCW program will still be active and Arizona will continue to issue CCW permits which are needed for concealed carry in Arizona in establishments that serve alcohol or for concealed carry in other states which recognize the Arizona permit. The law will take effect 90 days from the close of the current legislative session. In all likelihood, it will go into effect in September.

Outstanding!

 

[Bighouse Doc]

This can only bode well for the RKBA movement!

-Doc

 

[JSDinTexas]

Well, maybe good and maybe not

I applaud the loosening of AZ concealed carry laws, but with reservations, and these considerations:

The TX CHL says that:
1) I am not a convicted felon
2) I have not been treated for a mental/alcohol/drug related condition
3) I have taken a class that instructed me in the laws related to carrying in TX
4) I showed proficiency in loading, shooting, and handling a firearm
5) The TX CHL also conditionally exempts the holder from civil prosecution and resulting lawsuits related to a shooting incident
6) The TX CHL gives me reciprocity in other states without further conditions.

I consider all this a plus, and elevates the license to a more responsible/professional/legal level than the average citizen who may carry without any background check or proficiency training or license.

I do believe that a background check (#1 and possibly #2) or at least, a proficiency check (#4) should be observed along the lines similar to something like getting a drivers license where all but the most incapable or obvious people are denied.

I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind.

OK, I know I may be opening myself up to a heck of a response from some out there, but this is my take on it.

 

[wolfhunter]

jsdinTexas - <excerpted text>"I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind."

Either you believe in Individual rights and a presumption of Innocence (with an expectation of Responsibility) for that Individual, or you compromise with Statism and the assumption of guilt & an expectation of Irresponsibility.

The "line" should be drawn at "The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" since drawing it anywhere else makes room for the Nanny State mentality.

 

[JSDinTexas]

jsdinTexas - <excerpted text>"I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind."

Either you believe in Individual rights and a presumption of Innocence (with an expectation of Responsibility) for that Individual, or you compromise with Statism and the assumption of guilt & an expectation of Irresponsibility.

The "line" should be drawn at "The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" since drawing it anywhere else makes room for the Nanny State mentality.

I suppose I am prompted in my opinion by wanting the license, where it exists, to stand in the shadow of the rule of law, providing that it adheres strictly to its constitutional basis, because if that law is based on the creeds, principles, and constitution that this country is founded upon, then it protects both the responsible and otherwise.

My post was also taking into consideration to that which you refer that I completely agree with, that I appreciate individuals who are responsible in their activities, but I don't always see that.

 

[wolfhunter]

The Constitutional basis of gun laws is that they don't apply. EVERY gun law written violates the Constitution.

Those who can not or will not act responsibly should be allowed to earn their own Darwin Awards, not be allowed to restrict MY freedoms.

 

[Piece Corps]

Technically, there should be NO LAW requiring any qualification in order to carry concealed, or to own a gun, period. The 2nd Amendment says, "...the RIGHT (which cannot be granted by the state, as it comes from God) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Remember that any laws will only be ignored by those who wish to break them. The only people laws are made for are those who keep and respect them

That being said, common sense would declare that anyone obtaining a gun should know how to use it. Training should be made available, through gun stores and other outlets. Hand-outs should include state laws such as self-defense, the Castle Doctrine, responsibilities of those owning and carrying a gun, AD's, ammo, etc.

But as soon as you decide to decide who will or will not be allowed to own and/or carry a gun, you make that decision arbitrary - who decides who, what, where or why. Mental cases should not carry? The govt. has decided that military coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. may have PTSD or other war-related disorders, and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Who decides the criteria?

Convicted felons? I'll bet a lot of them were convicted because they used a gun in a crime. Do you think they'll say, "well, I'm not allowed to own a gun, so I won't." The 2nd Amendment speaks to self-defense, which no one should be denied, and protection against a corrupt government, which no one should be denied, either.

Right now, we have to live with the laws already established. So be it. But my opinion is that no one should be denied the RIGHT to own a gun unless you have displayed behavior that would take away that right. Any laws passed right now only dilute our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[JSDinTexas]

A lesson learned

One of the reasons I joined this forum was to learn. And today I learned what might be the best lesson of all.

I have considered myself a strict constitutionalist but based on Wolfhunter and Piece Corps posts, I find that I may still have some sheeple left in me. I will correct that.

I believe that the statement that no law should affect the 2nd, therefore no permit process, trumps anything that I have said today. I realize that this is an abrupt change from what I have advocated, but my opinion has been changed, and correctly so I believe.

My thanks to Wolfhunter and Piece Corp for helping me understand what it's really all about.

 

[GOV5]

I suppose I am prompted in my opinion by wanting the license, where it exists, to stand in the shadow of the rule of law, providing that it adheres strictly to its constitutional basis, because if that law is based on the creeds, principles, and constitution that this country is founded upon, then it protects both the responsible and otherwise.

My post was also taking into consideration to that which you refer that I completely agree with, that I appreciate individuals who are responsible in their activities, but I don't always see that.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

JSD,

This response to you should not be taken as me being a wiseguy, please. I'm just stating my view on what you said, so read in no more or no less than that. Fair enough?

I see what you are saying about responsible people only being able to get guns for concealed carry. What I am saying is that it's your opinion. the problem with that is that some people have some WIERD opinions. That's why we have all these WIERD gun laws now. You see, by allowing opinions to form law, you wind up with crazy laws, made by folks that are generally on the other side of YOUR opinion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For those reasons, it's just easier to use the Constitution, as it was written, and abide by it. An American citizens has the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. For the life of me, I don't understand why, in this Country, we keep making laws to enforce laws we already have on the books. It's insanity.

 

[JSDinTexas]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

JSD,

This response to you should not be taken as me being a wiseguy, please. I'm just stating my view on what you said, so read in no more or no less than that. Fair enough?

I see what you are saying about responsible people only being able to get guns for concealed carry. What I am saying is that it's your opinion. the problem with that is that some people have some WIERD opinions. That's why we have all these WIERD gun laws now. You see, by allowing opinions to form law, you wind up with crazy laws, made by folks that are generally on the other side of YOUR opinion. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For those reasons, it's just easier to use the Constitution, as it was written, and abide by it. An American citizens has the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. For the life of me, I don't understand why, in this Country, we keep making laws to enforce laws we already have on the books. It's insanity.[/QUOTE
===========================
GOV5
Yes, I now understand a lot better the position of you and the others that want no 'infringement' to the Constitution.
And I agree completely, and have changed my "opinion" to the more realistic and obvious - the Constitution should be the final word and no watering down of that document should be tolerated. And I must agree with your logic that any opinion, including mine, should not be used to oppose what our Constitution stands for or says.
As I said in the earlier post - this is a good lesson for me, and maybe others, and this will be my stand from now on.
I realize a radical change of my opinion in such a short time of a few posts may invite suspicion as pandering to these responses, but as is sometimes said, the light came on.
I will now and in the future advocate no permits or any form of checks in any state on this right given us by the 2nd.
Thanks
JSD
And I sincerely appreciate all of the viewpoints this thread has generated.

 

[Rachkir]

First thing anyone needs to understand when it comes to "gun laws" is why they were introduced in the first place.

Pretty much the basis for every gun law out there comes down to racism (I'm white). NY gun laws were initially instituted to prevent immigrants from owning and possessing guns. California gun laws were designed to prevent Chinese, Mexican, and other immigrants from owning or possessing guns. Heck, CAs open carry restriction (no loaded weapons, but you can have a magazine nearby) was in response to Black Panthers open carrying in the late 60s. Southern gun laws were designed to keep blacks and former slaves from owning or possessing guns.

This is something that people really do not know about... and if this knowledge was more commonplace, EVERYONE (even antis - most are liberal and think any racism should be stamped out [real or not]) would realize that gun laws are just another way to keep minorities/others "down." Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when you need them?

Just some information from things I have read.

Also, check out the link in my signature if you want some real meat and potatos for antis.

I am looking forward to the day that all states are like AK, AZ, and VT when it comes to gun laws. The best thing that happend to AZ was Napolitono leaving leasantry:

 

[XDM9mm]

2nd Amendment RIGHTS

Technically, there should be NO LAW requiring any qualification in order to carry concealed, or to own a gun, period. The 2nd Amendment says, "...the RIGHT (which cannot be granted by the state, as it comes from God) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Remember that any laws will only be ignored by those who wish to break them. The only people laws are made for are those who keep and respect them

That being said, common sense would declare that anyone obtaining a gun should know how to use it. Training should be made available, through gun stores and other outlets. Hand-outs should include state laws such as self-defense, the Castle Doctrine, responsibilities of those owning and carrying a gun, AD's, ammo, etc.

But as soon as you decide to decide who will or will not be allowed to own and/or carry a gun, you make that decision arbitrary - who decides who, what, where or why. Mental cases should not carry? The govt. has decided that military coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. may have PTSD or other war-related disorders, and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Who decides the criteria?

Convicted felons? I'll bet a lot of them were convicted because they used a gun in a crime. Do you think they'll say, "well, I'm not allowed to own a gun, so I won't." The 2nd Amendment speaks to self-defense, which no one should be denied, and protection against a corrupt government, which no one should be denied, either.

Right now, we have to live with the laws already established. So be it. But my opinion is that no one should be denied the RIGHT to own a gun unless you have displayed behavior that would take away that right. Any laws passed right now only dilute our 2nd Amendment rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Piece Corps (nice play on words),

You have stated the 2nd Amendment Rights issue very plainly and eloquently.

Let all of us who would judge, think about the 2nd Amendment RIGHT before we judge who has the Right to Carry

 

[Cobra]

That's why I love my Arizona!!

 

[Ringo]

That's why I love my Arizona!!

+1 Best move I ever made!! :shout::dance3:

 

[Ringo]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

. For the life of me, I don't understand why, in this Country, we keep making laws to enforce laws we already have on the books. It's insanity.

Why? Because of a FOUL DISEASE called SOCIAL PREJUDICE.

 

[GOV5]

THX! I was afraid I was gonna aggravate you. I've just seen too many WIERD decisions when "common sense" is used. Whose "common sense" is it? If it was Janet Reno's 'common sense", I don't want any part of it! The same is true of the current administration power folks, i.e., Obama,Pelosi,Reed.

Can you imagine what their "common sense" opinions would be? You've seen some already....that have been turned into LAW!!
To a Conservative, These folks are scary as hell to me for what they can do to the Nation.

 

[trustedgunny]

I applaud the loosening of AZ concealed carry laws, but with reservations, and these considerations:

The TX CHL says that:
1) I am not a convicted felon
2) I have not been treated for a mental/alcohol/drug related condition
3) I have taken a class that instructed me in the laws related to carrying in TX
4) I showed proficiency in loading, shooting, and handling a firearm
5) The TX CHL also conditionally exempts the holder from civil prosecution and resulting lawsuits related to a shooting incident
6) The TX CHL gives me reciprocity in other states without further conditions.

I consider all this a plus, and elevates the license to a more responsible/professional/legal level than the average citizen who may carry without any background check or proficiency training or license.

I do believe that a background check (#1 and possibly #2) or at least, a proficiency check (#4) should be observed along the lines similar to something like getting a drivers license where all but the most incapable or obvious people are denied.

I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind.

OK, I know I may be opening myself up to a heck of a response from some out there, but this is my take on it.

I must agree. I prefer to know that the licensed individual has had some amount of background work preformed before allowing him/her to carry. Unlike Texas, Florida statutes training is not much more than just above Arizona now.