AZ to Drop CCW Permit Requirement - Page 3

ReNtaPiG · April 2, 2010, 06:36 PM

Quote:

It's the inherent disbelief in the good of mankind, and it runs counter to the founding principles of this country.

@tet4

I think I get what your saying...The way I see it is...by removing the "license and training" aspect of concealed carry..I truly believe the state is leaving the "common sense" in the hands of the citizen.

EVERY man/woman is responsible for his/her own actions...should you decide you are going to carry a concealed weapon or even firearm for that matter...you assume the responsibility and potential consequences that comes along with carrying that weapon/firearm.

should the day come that you should actually have to use said weapon/firearm...and you have been properly trained in the legalities of use of deadly force leaving you the ability to actually determine when a deadly force scenario is warranted..then in court it would be safe to say would be ruled "justified" and dissolved of any criminal action.

now on the other hand...you carry a weapon/firearm WITHOUT being trained...your left to make an "educated guess" and when your "thought process" shuts down in stress...THERE IS NO THOUGHT PROCESS...and in a court you may just be found liable on both the criminal aspect as well as the civil.

Moral of the story...whether required to obtain a concealed carry license or not...the responsible "adult" thing to do is to be trained in the proper use and legalities of said firearm

Conn. Trooper · April 2, 2010, 08:06 PM

I agree 100% with shall not be infringed, however, I have no problem whatsoever with requiring training before you carry. I would rather kick the licensing to the curb and only require training. But that may never happen.

NavyLT · April 2, 2010, 08:33 PM

Is training required to vote? Exercise free speech? Worship in the way one chooses?

If training is required by the government to do something, does that action remain a right?

tet4 · April 2, 2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

I think I get what your saying...The way I see it is...by removing the "license and training" aspect of concealed carry..I truly believe the state is leaving the "common sense" in the hands of the citizen.

EVERY man/woman is responsible for his/her own actions...should you decide you are going to carry a concealed weapon or even firearm for that matter...you assume the responsibility and potential consequences that comes along with carrying that weapon/firearm.

should the day come that you should actually have to use said weapon/firearm...and you have been properly trained in the legalities of use of deadly force leaving you the ability to actually determine when a deadly force scenario is warranted..then in court it would be safe to say would be ruled "justified" and dissolved of any criminal action.

now on the other hand...you carry a weapon/firearm WITHOUT being trained...your left to make an "educated guess" and when your "thought process" shuts down in stress...THERE IS NO THOUGHT PROCESS...and in a court you may just be found liable on both the criminal aspect as well as the civil.

Moral of the story...whether required to obtain a concealed carry license or not...the responsible "adult" thing to do is to be trained in the proper use and legalities of said firearm

Of course we should get training, but every person's training level is going to vary depending on their situation, and they need to decide that, not the state. Plus, there are many different ways training happens. A friend, family member, your dad, a professional service, state sponsored event, etc.

BTW, I think a lot people blow the training thing out of proportion. An average person can learn to use a revolver in a half hour session with a good instructor and be proficient enough to hit COM at 5 yards. Another half hour learning the laws should get a lot of people on the right track. Is that good enough? Who knows, but that's not our problem to worry about - that's their problem.

Also, I have spent some time reading TheArmedCitizen.com blog, and I can bet that most people defending themselves probably have all sorts of different levels of training. If you haven't, spend some time going through their archives - it's a real eye opener on how people really are defending themselves and what it really takes. Very interesting stuff.

armoredman · April 2, 2010, 10:02 PM

I personally feel putting any type of government controlled "criteria" like testing and licensing, is wrong, like the poll tax, or many other laws passed in years passed to keep American citizens from exercising thier rights.
BUT, we do have something waiting in the wings that might make some of the posters here a bit happier. AZ has had on the books for a few years a law that allows firearm education to be offered in public schools as an elective. We tweak it a bit each year, like allowing NRA instructors to teach it...and I feel that we will make it mandatory,( like Drivers' Ed), in schools soon. By law, this class requires that the student demonstrate proficiency in safety by discharging a firearm at an approved range.

There is your training, and right where it is needed most.

n7qvu · April 3, 2010, 09:45 AM

AZ also allows guns in the classroom...
If you are teaching hunter education.

I've taught HE in a AZ high school classroom at nite, of course, with un-loaded long guns. No students were allowed to bring in their guns.

Conn. Trooper · April 3, 2010, 11:30 AM

NavyLt, free speech and voting doesn't grant the power to kill people insantly when used improperly. And you do need to register to vote, although last I looked it was free. Do you really think that someone that knows absolutely nothing, zero, about guns should be carrying them? I grew up with a grandfather that taught me about guns and how to shoot, and my father as well, not everybody has though. I have seen enough stupid things done with guns, through my job and everyday life, to say that yes, without a doubt, some training should be required.

Tombstonejim · April 3, 2010, 11:47 AM

I live in Cochise county and with all the [redacted] running around with guns I am to. I'm gonna go Monday and buy me a nice glock 23 and carry it everywhere. And I don't think Sheriff Deever will care.

Edited by Antipitas: Tombstonejim, please heed the advice of amoredman. His post is right below yours.

armoredman · April 3, 2010, 11:59 AM

Tombstone, I am not a moderator, but I must ask you to please refrain from the prejudice, I work with and know some very fine people who happen to be Hispanic. BTW, a lot of the illegal invaders coming across the border now are OTM, other than Mexican. I can certainly sympathize with your position in referance to illegal invaders, as the high number of criminal aliens in the prison system is astounding - 6,058 in AZ as of Feb 2010.
Conn. Trooper, I beg to differ, voters who voted in politicans have killed millions with thier choices, Hitler was voted into power, remember.
Free Speech doesn't kill? I think more than a few people died to have that right? "Give me liberty or give me death"? Wasn't that in your neck of the woods? However, you forgot one very, very important thing, sir - we have always had the right to open carry in this state, since 1912. We have it written in our state constitution. We don't require training to exercise this right.
I guess it is differant in Conn. A beautiful and historic state you live in, sir.

tet4 · April 3, 2010, 02:48 PM

Again, what about the states that don't require any training? There isn't a rash of law abiding crazies out there that buy a gun and then get in a road rage fight. I know that to many people, it FEELS right to require something, but we shouldn't make policy on those feelings, but rather on the intentions of our founders, the Constitution, freedom, logic and evidence.

BTW, I still don't understand the argument that people can own guns and shoot them and carry them in an open holster, but require more training from the state to carry them under a shirt.

NavyLT · April 3, 2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

NavyLt, free speech and voting doesn't grant the power to kill people insantly when used improperly. And you do need to register to vote, although last I looked it was free. Do you really think that someone that knows absolutely nothing, zero, about guns should be carrying them? I grew up with a grandfather that taught me about guns and how to shoot, and my father as well, not everybody has though. I have seen enough stupid things done with guns, through my job and everyday life, to say that yes, without a doubt, some training should be required.

In response to your question, I believe that someone that knows absolutely nothing, zero, about guns should have both the right and the legal ability to carry them. That's what our Constitution says.

There just isn't a problem with it, either, in states where that is lawful, Alaska, Vermont, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Virginia, Arizona to name just a few.

ReNtaPiG · April 3, 2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Of course we should get training, but every person's training level is going to vary depending on their situation, and they need to decide that, not the state. Plus, there are many different ways training happens. A friend, family member, your dad, a professional service, state sponsored event, etc.

BTW, I think a lot people blow the training thing out of proportion. An average person can learn to use a revolver in a half hour session with a good instructor and be proficient enough to hit COM at 5 yards. Another half hour learning the laws should get a lot of people on the right track. Is that good enough? Who knows, but that's not our problem to worry about - that's their problem.

I agree...training is training...formal or informal...and ANY training is better than none.

Quote:

If training is required by the government to do something, does that action remain a right?

Yes

Even if "formal training" is required...it only makes someone more informed...or better educated if you will...I would certainly feel better having another TRAINED/EDUCATED law-abiding armed citizen standing by me...then an un-educated, un-trained citizen carrying firearms because "it's our right and I don't care mentality"

I'm not saying that any un-trained individual has that mentality, I don't want my words taken out of context...I just feel safer when a responsible adult is educated on firearms vs. the person that says "I don't need training I already know how to shoot"...which is a statement I overheard a shady individual tell an instructor at my range when he was told he had to take a 4 hr. class under FL statutes in order to apply for a CCW. The crap that comes out of peoples mouths these days amazes me

anyway not to get sidetracked but I just look at training as a GOOD thing...not a bad thing.

armoredman · April 3, 2010, 09:26 PM

And I wear body armor to the Dept qualification every year, because some of my "trained" co-workers are just flat dangerous to be around. Can we find the accidental shooting rate for AZ, and compare it to an unfree state, like Mass or Conn, that requires training to be allowed a right? That would be the best way to prove a point on training, I think.

NavyLT · April 3, 2010, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armoredman

And I wear body armor to the Dept qualification every year, because some of my "trained" co-workers are just flat dangerous to be around. Can we find the accidental shooting rate for AZ, and compare it to an unfree state, like Mass or Conn, that requires training to be allowed a right? That would be the best way to prove a point on training, I think.

Here you go:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

For instance,

In Arizona, 1999-2006, All races, Both sexes, ages 18-65, there were 14,439 unintentional injury deaths, and 83 were firearm related (0.6%)

In Connecticut, same parameters, there were 5,331 unintentional injury deaths, and 24 were firearm related (0.5%)

In Wash D.C., same parameters, toughest gun control laws in the country, there were 1,113 unintentional injury deaths, and 13 were firearm related....1.2% - DOUBLE THE RATE OF ARIZONA.

armoredman · April 3, 2010, 11:06 PM

Ok, thanks.

robc · April 4, 2010, 12:51 AM

JustDreadful nailed it.

Quote:

It's immoral to say that someone whose commitment to firearms proficiency doesn't match yours has no right to defend him/herself.

I'm an NRA certified instructor for Basic Pistol, Basic Shotgun, Basic Rifle, Personal Protection In the Home, and Personal Protection Outside the Home. I've completed three courses dedicated specifically to defensive handgun tactics. I also belong to the USPSA and compete weekly from May-Oct. To those of you who believe there should be a training minimum, I'll be it. I believe that I represent the smallest amount of training someone should have and still be allowed to carry a gun. Sound assinine? This idea is no more random than yours. Level of training should not dictate one's right to self-defense.

ReNtaPiG · April 4, 2010, 05:26 AM

Quote:

For instance,

In Arizona, 1999-2006, All races, Both sexes, ages 18-65, there were 14,439 unintentional injury deaths, and 83 were firearm related (0.6%)

In Connecticut, same parameters, there were 5,331 unintentional injury deaths, and 24 were firearm related (0.5%)

In Wash D.C., same parameters, toughest gun control laws in the country, there were 1,113 unintentional injury deaths, and 13 were firearm related....1.2% - DOUBLE THE RATE OF ARIZONA.

Those are AWESOME stats...just for grins I plugged Florida into that mix using those criteria and what astonished me was the TOTAL number of deaths

38,199 total Unintentional injury deaths but only 124 from firearms!!!! (0.3%)

however Floridian drivers can be hazardous to your health 18,432 due to MV Traffic...LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conn. Trooper · April 4, 2010, 08:18 AM

Gents, read what I posted, I understand that free speech and the right to vote can cause deaths in the long run, but not instantly. Improper use of a firearm can cause instant death if you use it improperly. I knew someone would throw Hitler or another example at me, thats why I put instantly up there.

So, in the case of the person that could not figure out whether he should/could carry a loaded gun, and had to call the barracks and ask, should he get some firearms education? In a perfect world he would do it on his own. We don't live in a perfect world and if there is no requirement for him to get educated and he doesn't and kills you or a loved one by accident, what then? I fully agree that there is not a large number of people killing each other with guns by accident, but one is one too many. I have seen people at public ranges that put bullets in magazines backwards, put 9mm bullets in a .40, and shot the floor, target hangers, and the roof.

I agree that placing restrictions and requirements on rights can cause them to become more of a privilege than a right, and that training requirements can be used to restrict that right. But in this case I believe its needed. Just my opinion.

I would rather get rid of the license/permit and the fee's they come with and instead have a standardized level of training.

Conn. Trooper · April 4, 2010, 08:25 AM

Let's throw this out there then, should people that are not convicted felons or otherwise restricted from owning firearms be allowed to purchase and carry everywhere, with no training and no permit? Thats the opinion of some from what I understand.

Does that include the Bronx, Harlem, North Philly, Washington D.C., L.A., and all other large cities? I shudder to think of what would ensue if that were the case. I am from the Bronx and I can picture the mayhem that would go on if just anyone could buy weapons without a permit and no training kn the south Bronx.

Maybe this works in Vermont, and Alaska, or wherever. It would not work everywhere.

geetarman · April 4, 2010, 09:04 AM

Conn. Trooper,

Thanks for posting some well thought out points. I live in Az., I have a CCW and I shoot at least twice a week. I still believe that you cannot be too careful with firearms. I do not have all the training that is available, but I do have quite a bit.

I also choose not to carry. I am not sure about the proposed new carry without a permit in Arizona. My instinct tells me that not much will change.

The felons who have been carrying all along will continue until they are cuffed and stuffed. Those who carry legally will continue to do so and there will probably be a few who will opt to carry without a permit and some will give it up after a short while and others will adopt the practice.

In short, no major changes are expected.

Life goes on. As for me... I am going to the range tomorrow.

NavyLT · April 4, 2010, 10:43 AM

It's simple. Freedom is not free. There is risk associated with allowing every person to be as equally free as the next.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Does that include the Bronx, Harlem, North Philly, Washington D.C., L.A., and all other large cities? I shudder to think of what would ensue if that were the case. I am from the Bronx and I can picture the mayhem that would go on if just anyone could buy weapons without a permit and no training kn the south Bronx.

Those places that you mention are where we need "people that are not convicted felons or otherwise restricted from owning firearms be allowed to purchase and carry everywhere, with no training and no permit" THE MOST!

Look at the firearms crime rates in those places! They are astronomically greater than in "free" parts of the US. WHY? Because in the "free" parts of the US, law abiding citizens ARE allowed to have the means available to defend themselves!

And here is the fallacy in your argument, Conn. Trooper. You think that REQUIRING training will make society safer.... safer from WHOM? Do you think the gang bangers are going to get the training? Do you think the violent felons are going to get the training? Is this required level of training going to make it safer to be around the criminals? Absolutely not. By placing restrictions on gun ownership upon law abiding citizens all you are doing is restricting our ability to protect ourselves from those that aren't going to abide by those restrictions anyway!

Conn. Trooper you have already proven to us your inability, as a police officer, to protect us against violent crime. Why do have such difficulty accepting that we have the RIGHT to protect ourselves, and that right by the Constitution, is NOT open for infringement?

Requiring training and licensing for law abiding citizens to carry guns does not, statistically, make any significant difference in the death or injury rate caused by those law abiding citizens. However, requiring training and licensing and other restrictions placed upon the law abiding citizen DOES cause the firearms crime rate (and the associated risk to the law abiding citizen) to increase very significantly.

geetarman · April 4, 2010, 11:00 AM

NavyLt.

I appreciate the passion of your position. Those who do not feel that passion, are not your enemy. Harsh responses are not conducive to reasoned debate.

NavyLT · April 4, 2010, 11:03 AM

I am sorry if the facts are harsh, but the facts are still the facts.

Dragon55 · April 4, 2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Let's throw this out there then, should people that are not convicted felons or otherwise restricted from owning firearms be allowed to purchase and carry everywhere, with no training and no permit? .

My answer to this question is a resounding YES.

Conn. Trooper · April 4, 2010, 11:56 AM

All points considered, if you really think that people in the crime ridden neighborhoods and cities of this country should be able to walk into 7-11 and buy a gun with no permit/license and no basic knowledge of how it even works, then you are a fool. Just because a lack of permits works in Alaska and Vermont does not mean it will work in Newark or South Central.

Yes, criminals can go buy guns on the street. I know that, but making it any easier for them to buy them is a mistake.

April 3, 2010, 09:45 AM	#56
n7qvu Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2009 Location: Overgaard, AZ USA Posts: 153	AZ also allows guns in the classroom... If you are teaching hunter education. I've taught HE in a AZ high school classroom at nite, of course, with un-loaded long guns. No students were allowed to bring in their guns. __________________ Jerry W. NRA Instructor: Pistol, Home Safety, Personal Protection, RSO, Reloading. NRA Life Member, NRA-ILA Sustaining Member, AZ CCW training org. & instructor, AZ HE instructor. JWsGUNs.com FFL-07, NFA SOT-C2.

April 3, 2010, 11:47 AM	#58
Tombstonejim Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2007 Location: Tombstone Az Posts: 202	I live in Cochise county and with all the [redacted] running around with guns I am to. I'm gonna go Monday and buy me a nice glock 23 and carry it everywhere. And I don't think Sheriff Deever will care. Edited by Antipitas: Tombstonejim, please heed the advice of amoredman. His post is right below yours. Last edited by Al Norris; April 4, 2010 at 06:10 PM. Reason: added a warning

April 3, 2010, 11:59 AM	#59
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	Tombstone, I am not a moderator, but I must ask you to please refrain from the prejudice, I work with and know some very fine people who happen to be Hispanic. BTW, a lot of the illegal invaders coming across the border now are OTM, other than Mexican. I can certainly sympathize with your position in referance to illegal invaders, as the high number of criminal aliens in the prison system is astounding - 6,058 in AZ as of Feb 2010. Conn. Trooper, I beg to differ, voters who voted in politicans have killed millions with thier choices, Hitler was voted into power, remember. Free Speech doesn't kill? I think more than a few people died to have that right? "Give me liberty or give me death"? Wasn't that in your neck of the woods? However, you forgot one very, very important thing, sir - we have always had the right to open carry in this state, since 1912. We have it written in our state constitution. We don't require training to exercise this right. I guess it is differant in Conn. A beautiful and historic state you live in, sir. Last edited by armoredman; April 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM.

April 2, 2010, 08:06 PM	#52
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	I agree 100% with shall not be infringed, however, I have no problem whatsoever with requiring training before you carry. I would rather kick the licensing to the curb and only require training. But that may never happen.

April 2, 2010, 08:33 PM	#53
NavyLT Junior member Join Date: January 25, 2006 Location: Oak Harbor, WA Posts: 1,719	Is training required to vote? Exercise free speech? Worship in the way one chooses? If training is required by the government to do something, does that action remain a right?

April 2, 2010, 10:02 PM	#55
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	I personally feel putting any type of government controlled "criteria" like testing and licensing, is wrong, like the poll tax, or many other laws passed in years passed to keep American citizens from exercising thier rights. BUT, we do have something waiting in the wings that might make some of the posters here a bit happier. AZ has had on the books for a few years a law that allows firearm education to be offered in public schools as an elective. We tweak it a bit each year, like allowing NRA instructors to teach it...and I feel that we will make it mandatory,( like Drivers' Ed), in schools soon. By law, this class requires that the student demonstrate proficiency in safety by discharging a firearm at an approved range. There is your training, and right where it is needed most.

April 3, 2010, 11:30 AM	#57
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	NavyLt, free speech and voting doesn't grant the power to kill people insantly when used improperly. And you do need to register to vote, although last I looked it was free. Do you really think that someone that knows absolutely nothing, zero, about guns should be carrying them? I grew up with a grandfather that taught me about guns and how to shoot, and my father as well, not everybody has though. I have seen enough stupid things done with guns, through my job and everyday life, to say that yes, without a doubt, some training should be required.

April 3, 2010, 02:48 PM	#60
tet4 Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2009 Posts: 232	Again, what about the states that don't require any training? There isn't a rash of law abiding crazies out there that buy a gun and then get in a road rage fight. I know that to many people, it FEELS right to require something, but we shouldn't make policy on those feelings, but rather on the intentions of our founders, the Constitution, freedom, logic and evidence. BTW, I still don't understand the argument that people can own guns and shoot them and carry them in an open holster, but require more training from the state to carry them under a shirt.

April 3, 2010, 09:26 PM	#63
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	And I wear body armor to the Dept qualification every year, because some of my "trained" co-workers are just flat dangerous to be around. Can we find the accidental shooting rate for AZ, and compare it to an unfree state, like Mass or Conn, that requires training to be allowed a right? That would be the best way to prove a point on training, I think.

April 3, 2010, 11:06 PM	#65
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	Ok, thanks.

April 4, 2010, 08:18 AM	#68
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Gents, read what I posted, I understand that free speech and the right to vote can cause deaths in the long run, but not instantly. Improper use of a firearm can cause instant death if you use it improperly. I knew someone would throw Hitler or another example at me, thats why I put instantly up there. So, in the case of the person that could not figure out whether he should/could carry a loaded gun, and had to call the barracks and ask, should he get some firearms education? In a perfect world he would do it on his own. We don't live in a perfect world and if there is no requirement for him to get educated and he doesn't and kills you or a loved one by accident, what then? I fully agree that there is not a large number of people killing each other with guns by accident, but one is one too many. I have seen people at public ranges that put bullets in magazines backwards, put 9mm bullets in a .40, and shot the floor, target hangers, and the roof. I agree that placing restrictions and requirements on rights can cause them to become more of a privilege than a right, and that training requirements can be used to restrict that right. But in this case I believe its needed. Just my opinion. I would rather get rid of the license/permit and the fee's they come with and instead have a standardized level of training.

April 4, 2010, 08:25 AM	#69
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Let's throw this out there then, should people that are not convicted felons or otherwise restricted from owning firearms be allowed to purchase and carry everywhere, with no training and no permit? Thats the opinion of some from what I understand. Does that include the Bronx, Harlem, North Philly, Washington D.C., L.A., and all other large cities? I shudder to think of what would ensue if that were the case. I am from the Bronx and I can picture the mayhem that would go on if just anyone could buy weapons without a permit and no training kn the south Bronx. Maybe this works in Vermont, and Alaska, or wherever. It would not work everywhere.

April 4, 2010, 09:04 AM	#70
geetarman Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 3,157	Conn. Trooper, Thanks for posting some well thought out points. I live in Az., I have a CCW and I shoot at least twice a week. I still believe that you cannot be too careful with firearms. I do not have all the training that is available, but I do have quite a bit. I also choose not to carry. I am not sure about the proposed new carry without a permit in Arizona. My instinct tells me that not much will change. The felons who have been carrying all along will continue until they are cuffed and stuffed. Those who carry legally will continue to do so and there will probably be a few who will opt to carry without a permit and some will give it up after a short while and others will adopt the practice. In short, no major changes are expected. Life goes on. As for me... I am going to the range tomorrow.

April 4, 2010, 11:00 AM	#72
geetarman Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 3,157	NavyLt. I appreciate the passion of your position. Those who do not feel that passion, are not your enemy. Harsh responses are not conducive to reasoned debate.

April 4, 2010, 11:03 AM	#73
NavyLT Junior member Join Date: January 25, 2006 Location: Oak Harbor, WA Posts: 1,719	I am sorry if the facts are harsh, but the facts are still the facts.

April 4, 2010, 11:56 AM	#75
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	All points considered, if you really think that people in the crime ridden neighborhoods and cities of this country should be able to walk into 7-11 and buy a gun with no permit/license and no basic knowledge of how it even works, then you are a fool. Just because a lack of permits works in Alaska and Vermont does not mean it will work in Newark or South Central. Yes, criminals can go buy guns on the street. I know that, but making it any easier for them to buy them is a mistake.