Arizona becoming more Texasy than Texas?

[Freiwillige]

Arizona law makers just stepped once step closer to making concealed firearms legal without a permit. I'm pro gun, pro liberty but I'm not sure how I feel on this.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_concealed_weapons_arizona

[tater]

Legal gun owners aren't going to shoot anyone (other than bad guys) regardless of the CCW status. Criminal will carry concealed regardless of the law, AND kill people.

Doesn't matter, IMO.

[Freiwillige]

While I agree with you completely on that point Tater the Issue I have is one of gun safety. Getting your CCW means training and gun safety before you are let loose on society.

Many first time gun owners are a bit naive and do not realize the basics of gun safety and gun laws.

Now if you are the average gun owner your gun is at home rarely touched unless your going to the range but now many will be tempted to carry without intimate knowledge of the weapon they poses.

I field strip and clean my firearms once a month even if I have not fired them just to keep all the features in familiarity and make sure its in perfect working order.

[Platapus]

I kinda want some sort of educational requirement. Most civilians really don't understand the laws concerning self defense.

I think the way Virginia does it works best. Virginia is a "shall issue" state when it comes to CWP. But Virginia does have an educational (barely) requirement.

I am sure the Virginia police appreciate knowing who may be carrying when they roll on a call.

Now if only Virginia can only get rid of the bar/restaurant exclusion :yep:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I wish MD allowed concealed weapons permits. You can theoretically get a permit, they just won't give you one. So, only the criminals get to carry concealed weapons. Yep, real smart, that.

[Bubblehead1980]

I like it, after they complete a gun safety course

[Bubblehead1980]

I wish MD allowed concealed weapons permits. You can theoretically get a permit, they just won't give you one. So, only the criminals get to carry concealed weapons. Yep, real smart, that.

Liberals and their Anti-Gun agenda are the reason for that.I always laugh when people from up north move here(Florida) and are amazed at the gun laws here.

[August]

Massachusetts requires a gun safety course just to possess a firearm, let alone carry concealed. What kind of pisses me off about it is even though I'm former military and have owned firearms for a third of a century, and had not only a pistol permit but a Machinegun license the last time I lived in this state I still have to fork over nearly $200 bucks just for the privilege of exercising my constitutional right.

[Tribesman]

Now if only Virginia can only get rid of the bar/restaurant exclusion
Guns and alcohol don't mix.

[Bubblehead1980]

Guns and alcohol don't mix.


Wow, we actually agree on something, for the most part:har:

[Admiral8Q]

The Feds in Canada are taking away every man's right to own a firearm. That will leave only the criminals with them they don't obey the law, oi!:shifty:

[antikristuseke]

I am not against firearm ownership, but think that to own one a person should pass some training course to make sure they understand basic safety protocols. That being said, I am qualified to handle machine guns and assault rifles in the Estonian Defense Forces so if I choose to own a handgun it is merely a formality for me.

[Rebel]

MOST MAN KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT=THINK +:sunny: OTHERS :wah::timeout::damn::woot:=DRIVE YOUR CAR AT 5 PM .I KNOW HOW TO DRIVE . I DO WHAT IS RIGHT .THE POWER TO DO IS IN EACH MAN =THE LIGHT OF KNOWING. JUST FOR TODAY , LETS TRY NOT KILLING EACH OTHER:sunny:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Liberals and their Anti-Gun agenda are the reason for that.I always laugh when people from up north move here(Florida) and are amazed at the gun laws here.

Sigh...give it a rest, dude. I'm a liberal (sort of), but if there are going to be firearms in circulation, I want to be able to legally carry one.

[CCIP]

I used to be kind of anti-gun-ownership. Then I went to Florida to visit a friend, and he took me to a gun store, where he bought a gun (far from his first) right then and there, and took me firing range, where we shot for a while and met folks who brought their guns along. You know, while I'm still cautious and I think competence and safety in gun ownership needs to be enforced - honestly, I found the whole culture of gun-owning remarkably civil and super-safe when I actually encountered it in real life. Anything but the gun-crazed yahoos that critics often seem to portray gun-nuts as - but rather competent and safety-minded people. That was actually one of my most positive experiences of the US so far.

[edit] There even exists a video (http://www.facebook.com/v/630964505815) of a certain hairy russian/canadian trying his hand at a CZ-75 for the first time. Man, that's some good memories - even if I was a really terrible shot. Here's where taking a training course would've probably come in quite handy :88)

[tater]

Guns and alcohol don't mix.

It's complicated in the US by the COnstitution saying that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." (my emphasis)

That's a very low standard that makes ANY regulation technically unconstitutional (and no, it does not apply to the National Guard, it says "the People" which in all other cases in the constitution means "the people" not some subset).

US murder and accidental firearm death rates are on par with Europe if you look at a, um, European demographic. The US averages are so crappy because of elements of the population that have far higher rates of criminality. Criminals (felons) are already forbidden to own guns. Doesn't stop them. If you are a criminal, a gun is a useful tool needed for your work. You WILL have that tool, regardless of laws. While I like classes for firearms owners (training is always good), again, criminals won't take the classes, and responsible citizens will take them voluntarily for the most part.

BTW, turns out that the vast majority of accidental firearms deaths and injuries happen to felons, or relatives of felons. What a surprise.

[Tribesman]

It's complicated in the US by the COnstitution saying that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." (my emphasis)

So as you follow that up with the problems of felons having guns, surely they are entitled to guns as their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

US murder and accidental firearm death rates are on par with Europe if you look at a, um, European demographic.
This could be fun. Would you care to elaborate?

If you are a criminal, a gun is a useful tool needed for your work.
Last time I looked, a fella out kiting didn't need a gun, all he needed was someone elses credit card.
So what you must mean is a gun is a tool that a criminal needs if they are to be an armed criminal who is armed with a gun. And of course an armed criminal needs to be armed with a gun if they are in a situation where their victim may have a gun....
Well you can see where thats going:rotfl2:

BTW, turns out that the vast majority of accidental firearms deaths and injuries happen to felons, or relatives of felons. What a surprise.
Really? got any reputable studies for that?
I only ask as the NRA was throwing out some studies on usage of firearms for self defence and they included criminals who used their firearms to defend themselves in carrying out armed crime:har:

[Freiwillige]

And of course an armed criminal needs to be armed with a gun if they are in a situation where their victim may have a gun....
Well you can see where thats going:rotfl2:




Criminals do not choose victims who have a chance at fighting back. In fact most armed criminals use their arms in situations where the victims are unarmed. So legal Joe American is just leveling the playing field by having a firearm.

[danurve]

Good for AZ. :yep:

[Platapus]

Guns and alcohol don't mix.

I agree, I don't think someone carrying a weapon should be drinking. But that is not the issue. The issue is being able to carry concealed in a bar or even a restaurant that serves alcohol.

In Virginia, you can carry in the open in a bar, but not concealed.

[Tribesman]

Criminals do not choose victims who have a chance at fighting back.
Well thats absolute bollox isn't it, if it were true then nowhere would get robbed if they had armed guards.

In fact most armed criminals use their arms in situations where the victims are unarmed.
Got any reliable studies to back that up?

So legal Joe American is just leveling the playing field by having a firearm.
And criminal Joe the scumbag is just going to up the ante again.

[Freiwillige]

Were talking about average people here not rich guys carrying cases of gold bars, Obviously the pay off motivates the criminal and a criminal isnt going to choose the guy with armed guards to rob him for 20$ in his wallet!

Its pretty common sense that any basic criminal would choose the easiest victim. Are you upset that people like me carry a firearm while people like you do not making you and easier target?

In all fairness I believe what we are arguing about is a cultural issue. Americans have guns and lots of them. Its gone to far to ban them and have any hope of them dissapearing because culturally speaking Americans and Guns go hand in hand hence the 2nd Amendment.


And as for any studies to back up any comment all you have to do is turn on the news here.

[Tribesman]

Were talking about average people here not rich guys carrying cases of gold bars, Obviously the pay off motivates the criminal and a criminal isnt going to choose the guy with armed guards to rob him for 20$ in his wallet!

So you are talking only about small time criminals, so they are in general out on the thieve just going on random oppertunity.
Thats where your cycle about leveling the playing field doesn't work.
Scum are going to rob, it doesn't matter what precautions or punishments there are, there will still be thieving scum.
With concealed weapons there is no way of knowing who is carrying a gun is there, so an oppertunist criminal is going to have to assume every one of his potential victims has a gun and then act accordingly.

Are you upset that people like me carry a firearm while people like you do not making you and easier target?

That makes no sense.

[Platapus]

I always thought a "right" was something that the government could not take away, not what the government allows.

If the government allows something, that's a privilege.

In my book there is a big difference between a right and a privilege.

[CaptainHaplo]

While I understand the logic behind wanting to exclude bars from areas where you can conceal carry, I have a few questions about it.

Admittedly - it seems to make sense on the surface - but has there been an issue with legal CC weapon owners shooting up bars? If not - then restrictions are not needed.

Secondly - while it does seem make sense - the majority of bars are in fact privately owned entities, and thus who is the government to tell that bar owner what he can and cannot allow in his own establishment when it comes to this issue? This is the same as allowing smoking in a bar. Either one - someone carrying concealed, or smoking in that bar - affects only those who choose to patronize that bar. Thus its different than saying its his bar, he can serve an already drunk person - because the service of alcohol affects a person directly - even after they leave the premises and interact with the rest of the general public - wich in the case of a drunk - creates a general public health hazard.

As for firearm education - I don't know of ANY sane group - including the NRA - that has any issues with gun safety classes. Most promote them consistently. Want to make firearm ownership safer - here is what can be done. The state can not LEGALLY force you to go to a safety class so you can own a gun - but what is SHOULD do is make licensing of legal firearms have different costs. If you apply for a permit, have never had an approved safety class, lets make the license cost $200 bucks. If you have had a class (easily verifiable - they are given at most ranges for nearly a song - usually less than $20) - that same permit will only cost you the current cost - which is anywhere from $5 - 20 dollars here in NC.

This provides significant motivation for every firearm purchaser (regardless of if they carry it or not) to have a safety class. The difference in cost is sufficient to motivate even the most slack person to attend the class.

Personally, if you want to carry, do some research. While I do carry on occasion, I do not do so concealed. NC has no law against what is called "Open Carry", though each municipality may have local restrictions on open display. Note that such local governments are NOT required to post such restrictions publicly on signs and such - which is why a gun owner must (and should in any reasonable mind) do the research. Contact your local DA - and when you get told "yes there is a restriction" - ask where it may be found in writing - because they will lie and say there is one even when there isn't. Usually when I do carry, the only feedback I usually get are from people who assume I am a police detective (if your asked - always disabuse them of this notion if its not true - NEVER impersonate a law enforcement officer). After clarifying that I am not, I know exactly a person's political views by the reaction - its either total horror or its curiosity on "well how can you carry openly without getting into trouble". That question then gives you a perfect opportunity to help educate the general public on the rights they have - that government can't take away (but sure as heck tries to HIDE). Also know that even with open carry allowed, some states have common law "going to the terror of the public" that can land you in hot water. I shouldn't have to say it - but I will - ALWAYS remember your responsibility as a gun owner - and act appropriately.

[Platapus]

It is strange how people can openly carry and still not get noticed.

I was at the vet's office a while ago. We were all in the small waiting room. This guy walks in with an open carry. I check out his weapon (SIG :yeah:).

Later, I ask The Frau, if she saw the guy with the gun. She did not notice despite the fact that he was standing about 10 feet away from her. His weapon was not concealed or covered in any way. But, he also did not call attention to it nor did he act tense. Hence, probably only a gun nut like me even noticed his OWB rig.

I have heard similar stories from other gun nuts being the only ones who notice an open carry.

[Tribesman]

Admittedly - it seems to make sense on the surface - but has there been an issue with legal CC weapon owners shooting up bars? If not - then restrictions are not needed.


Well lets take one example, say a nice little bar below canal that can be full of that rare breed of New Yorker that can not only carry but can be required to carry.
Hey add in a bunch of state and outa county police plus all the sherriffs and federal agencies...hey magnifico you get a bunch of stressed out people shootinfg up Tribeca 'cos they is drunk and pissed and well tired and stressed.
OK post 9/11 is about the most extreme you can get, but would you like more examples of why stressed up people should not be allowed near alcohol with firearms.

Come to think of it , wasn't that crazy mercenary that went mad in Iraq blaming his murders(alledged)on the drink, stress and having a gun in his hand when the drink and stress combined to make him feel he had to kill

[UnderseaLcpl]

I always thought a "right" was something that the government could not take away, not what the government allows.



:rotfl2:
Yeah..... in theory.

You have the "right" to free speech, except when you don't.
You have the "right" to bear arms, as a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, except where the court interprets that differently.
You have the "right" to all rights and powers not expressly guaranteed to the federal government, except when it finds sneaky ways of going around that little obstacle.


The more I study law, the more readily apparent it is to me that our rights are largely illusory. They technically exist, buried under millions of pages of criminal law and court records, where you'll never get to them and you can't defend them. People who spend the better part of a decade getting a law degree and the rest of their lives practicing law get to tell you what your rights are and when you may have them.

What defines a tremendous amount of US law and the rights supposedly protected by it today is litigation. I can go to congress and propose a piece of legislation to restrict your right to own a gun, for instance. Assuming it finds some purchase, representatives and lobbyists for concerned groups will go to war over the bill, and even if it passes, the Supreme Court will likely declare it unconstitutional. Obviously, that doesn't always happen, but the process is difficult enough and costly enough that people are deterred from trying that crap most of the time. It generally takes something like the Columbine shootings to generate enough pblic and political momentum to legislate tighter restrictions on guns.

Conversely, with an ABA certification, I can take away your right to own a gun simply by convincing one judge or a jury of peers who probably couldn't recite even one law from their own munincipality. A lawyer can bring a suit against you just for knowingly causing "mental distress" to a client or himself just by possessing a gun in a certain area.

Most times, the fear does the work and I don't even have to take you to court. Litigation is so financially ruinous to people who are not lawyers that they end up settling immediately. They also often end up making concessions in addition to paying a settlement - not carrying a weapon anymore, for instance.

Other times, the respondent, defendant, or apellee fights the case, but can't fight long enough to win. The ways one can drag out a case are so myriad that it would probably take, and does take, several volumes of law texts to describe them. These methods weren't created for that purpose, but thanks to dubious definitions of due process, lawyers have another weapon to use against you - your own attorney's fees.

This is the real reason why virtually every private employer bans guns from their premises. Law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens are lawsuit bombs just waiting to go off. It only takes one irrational person and one decent lawyer to mire the firm and the employee in a devestating legal battle. Sometimes you don't even need the irrational person.

Even when the plaintiff loses, they can just walk away. Many states have statutes prohibiting countersuit for legal costs, and countersuits are difficult to win, anyway because all the other side has to do is prove that the countersuit is punitive and they're off the hook.

Worse, if the case is won in a higher court, it can be used as judicial precedent, so whatever decision the weasel lawyer obtained can be used in all manner of even slightly related cases. This is why you so often see those law firm commercials on TV in concentrated rashes focused on a particular product or event. The firms are copy-catting some previous case and they will swarm all over anybody even remotely related to it...as long as they have money.

Not all lawyers are like that, as there are many who take cases pro bono or form coalitions dedicated to protecting people from abuses of the legal system, but even then, your rights depend on how good they are, not on the ideal of the right itself.

[Tribesman]

The more I study law, the more readily apparent it is to me that our rights are largely illusory. They technically exist, buried under millions of pages of criminal law and court records, where you'll never get to them and you can't defend them.
The real world, its a simple chioce, get on with it or chase the illusion./

[Sailor Steve]

Even when the plaintiff loses, they can just walk away. Many states have statutes prohibiting countersuit for legal costs, and countersuits are difficult to win, anyway because all the other side has to do is prove that the countersuit is punitive and they're off the hook.
I've only recently learned from reading Tacitus that the ancient Romans had an interesting answer for that. If you accused someone of a crime solely on your own word (as people often did just to get rid of people they didn't like), you had better be sure of your case, because if you lost you would be given whatever the punishment was for that crime. It deterred a lot of useless litigation.