AZ to Drop CCW Permit Requirement

[armoredman]

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.

Sir, did you read my posts? We've been doing exactly that for 98 years as a state, and all the years prior as a territory!!!! It has worked, continues to work, and will continue to work. I would love to see firearms education in the schools like Drivers Ed, and AZ IS working on that exact solution. But mandated state training leaves the door wide open to abuse by those in power who would rather the peons not be armed, as is our right. Let anti-rights people into the chambers, and your state mandated test becomes impossible to pass, licensing become impossible to afford except to the rich and connected.

[Conn. Trooper]

And like I said, it may work in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, whatever. It would be a horrible idea in South Central, Newark or Miami. I am glad its working out in AZ, and I agree licensing and training may open a door to make carrying harder for everybody. It may not. We don't know.

Just my opinion, its worth just what everybody else's opinion is worth. Just what you paid for it. Nothing.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

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.

Sounds like somebody from the Brady Bunch came into this discussion. How does doing away with a license to carry and doing away with a training requirement make it any easier for a criminal to buy a gun? The two are completely unrelated to each other.

The only thing accomplished by removing a license to carry requirement and removing a training requirement does is make it easier for those who abide by the law to be able to defend themselves!

AND, on top of that, the regulations that we have in place in Newark or South Central sure as hell aren't working now, are they? All we have done is such places is disarm law abiding citizens, causing them to be easier targets for the criminal who could not care less about such regulations and laws. Look at Washington D.C. - historically the city with the toughest licensing statutes in the country - oh, and BTW, the HIGHEST firearm crime rate in the country as well! And yet, when the Supreme Court finally ordered those restrictions removed, what happened, the crime rate immediately went down!

Gun control for the law abiding citizen has proven historically and statistically to have no other effect other than raising the crime rate.

[Conn. Trooper]

Like I said, I think it's a bad idea. I would require training before owning or carrying a firearm. My opinion, again worth as much or as little as everybody else's opinion, just what you paid for it, nothing. If you think that there should be no training required, go to youtube and search idiots with guns or gun accidents and see what comes up. You will scare the hell out of yourself. I get scared at least once every time I go to a public range. Every time, without fail, somebody scares the s*** out of me with their lack of gun skills. And here in sunny CT we require the NRA class, and I still dread going to a public range. My private gun club just sent out an email about how in one weekend, just one, there were over 30 missed shots into support poles and the floor and walls. One weekend, and they were all members who at least have the NRA pistol class.

Before somebody else points out that all cops are horrible with guns, spare us all, I know that cops are the worst people to have guns. I am a police instructor.

[geetarman]

"Before somebody else points out that all cops are horrible with guns, spare us all, I know that cops are the worst people to have guns. I am a police instructor."

No sir. I do not believe that at all.

I shoot with LEO at least once a week. A LEO sold his backup gun to my daughter when she went to work for the Agency.

My daughter still remembers how thorough his instructions were to her when she first handled a firearm. She shoots against Federal police now. . .and wins.

My VERY best friend is a LEO ( so is his wife) and my wife played for their wedding.

I have had a LOT of one on one instruction and tips from a PROFESSIONAL on how to handle and how to shoot.

Conn. Trooper, don't sell yourself short.

Geetarman

[Conn. Trooper]

geetarman, thanks for the kind words. However, without fail whenever a training scenario is commented on by someone in LE, there is immediately an overwhelming response of "bad cops with guns" stories posted by other members.

I have found that 80% of cops are competent with their guns, but it is just another tool to them. They are neither horrible or exceptional with them, its just a tool. 10% are poor/horrible with their guns and they are the source of the bad cops with guns stories. The other 10% are gun people that take guns very seriously and train with them, know them, and are excellent with guns ( I tend to fall in this bunch, I was a gun person long before I got into LE and even before I went into the service). Along with this I have also found that the numbers add up along the same lines as far as LE and gun ownership go. 10% are anti-gun, 80% are neutral about guns until they have one pointed at them or see guns do bad things, the other 10% are very pro-gun and support gun ownership.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

I have found that 80% of cops are competent with their guns, but it is just another tool to them. They are neither horrible or exceptional with them, its just a tool. 10% are poor/horrible with their guns and they are the source of the bad cops with guns stories. The other 10% are gun people that take guns very seriously and train with them, know them, and are excellent with guns

And the same is true of civilian gun ownership, and that is the basis for your desire to require training for those of us that possess a desire to protect ourselves and our families.

[Conn. Trooper]

Navy Lt, you have made it clear that you believe that if everyone in the country carried weapons openly the world would be a much better place that is free from all crime and bad people. Guns would never provoke a crime, only prevent it. You have offered the opinion that there should be no regulation or restriction of any kind on guns or gun ownership. And you have made it crystal clear that you are no fan of LE. I have a hard time taking anything you say as reasonable and objective. Maybe it's my shortcoming

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Navy Lt, you have made it clear that you believe that if everyone in the country carried weapons openly the world would be a much better place that is free from all crime and bad people. Guns would never provoke a crime, only prevent it. You have offered the opinion that there should be no regulation or restriction of any kind on guns or gun ownership.

I would be willing to wager that YOU are the only person who has read this thread who thinks I have said anything you have stated above. Conn. Trooper you would be much more credible if you would keep your posts in the realm of reality vice making lame personal attacks such as those above.

As you stated, it is about 10% of the police officers that shed negative image upon the rest of the good police officers out there. I would suggest that you take a look in the mirror and evaluate which percentage you think you are representative with exaggerated comments such as those you have made above.

[Conn. Trooper]

I am talking about prior threads where you compared me to the Gestapo and stated that if everyone openly carried weapons there would be no crime. I have the threads saved, I could post them here.

[NavyLT]

Here, let me help you out with that:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=383284

And to quote Conn. Trooper on that same thread:

I don't agree with every law there is either. However, who am I to say their rights are not as important as someone else's?

And yet you come here on this thread and tell us that you feel that those without training should have less rights to purchase and carry firearms as those who do obtain training. Interesting.

Now, it's your turn, Conn. Trooper to back up this statement:

and stated that if everyone openly carried weapons there would be no crime.

[Conn. Trooper]

Ok, posted by you in this thread http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=374538&page=2

So why not play the odds that are in the targeted victim's favor? Tell the criminal right up front, I am armed and I am likely to shoot you if you choose to attempt to commit a crime against me.

The "element of surprise" is an offensive tactic, not a defensive tactic. The "element of surprise" comes into play when a person is attacking. The defensive tactic of choice is to "walk softly and carry a big stick." If you want to keep someone from attacking you, you show them that they are going to be in for a losing battle right from the get go.

The concealed carrier is concerned about defending themselves - they look like every other target out there. Concealed carry does nothing to deter crime. The open carrier is concerned about deterring the attack in the first place and not being placed into a position to have to defend themselves.

AND, btw, most of my encounters when someone asks about the gun have turned out to be positive, informative and educational experiences, not experiences that drives people away from guns. The sight of a law abiding citizen in hand cuffs merely because they choose to care about themselves and those around them to have a means available to protect themselves does more to encourage irrational fear of the carrier rather than the gun itself.

If police would respond appropriately to a mwag call, and simply see no crime being committed and leave the open carrier alone, that would be the biggest boost to the gun owner's cause.

[NavyLT]

And THAT is your support for claiming I said this:

and stated that if everyone openly carried weapons there would be no crime.

Wow.

And, may I suggest you also post exactly why it was that I stated what I did?

The advantage to open carry is simple. I would suggest you read "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms" by Wright and Rossi. Notice the bolded parts below, please.

Quote:
Interviewing felony prisoners in ten state correctional systems in 1981, Wright and Rossi found extensive information suggesting that gun control laws have relatively little effect on violent criminals. For example, only 12% of criminals, and only 7% of the criminals specializing in handgun crime, had acquired their last crime handgun at a gun store. Of those, about a quarter had stolen the gun from a store; a large number of the rest, Wright and Rossi suggested, had probably procured the gun through a legal surrogate buyer, such as a girlfriend with a clean record. Fifty-six percent of the prisoners said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that "One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Thirty-nine percent of the felons had personally decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun, and eight percent said the experience had occurred "many times."

[Conn. Trooper]

I didn't say that anyone should have less rights. I don't think that requiring people to know how to use their weapons is taking away a right. You do, I don't. I even said I would trade the permit/licensing process for a required level of training. I think that everyone that wants to carry a weapon should be able to, if they know how to use it safely.

Could the .gov make the training required beyond the reach of some people?yep. Have they done so? No. If a person can go and buy a gun, they should know how to use it. I dont think its unreasonable to expect that someone carrying a firearm is proficiant with it.

[Conn. Trooper]

Ok, I see I was wrong, there would be no crime where the guns scared the criminals away.

[Wildalaska]

It has not been a bloodbath up here (we have the permit option by the way) and I dont like it anyway.

WildtherearesomegoodpointstobemadeagainstitAlaska TM

[Conn. Trooper]

Wild, how's the weather up there?

[Wildalaska]

40 degrees

And I agree with you. I have a right to be free from harm caused by deadly weapons. Govt mandated training is OK by me, hell Id replace every permit in this country with nothing more than a safety card if I was a truly an Omnipotent Yet Benevolent Diety

WildimmakingcollardgreensAlaska TM

[Conn. Trooper]

if I was a truly an Omnipotent Yet Benevolent Diety

I thought you were?

[Al Norris]

OK folks. Let's all take a deep breath, and Let. It. Out. Slowly.

One man's opinion does not call for another man to be insinuating that the first is a Brady Plant. Got that, NavyLT? That's called attacking the person and not the persons argument. Uncalled for and against the rules!

There are good arguments for both points of view. Just as there are arguments against both points.

Like it or not, we are now in the realm of politics, as compromise is on the horizon.

I can see dropping all the permitting. I can also see requiring firearms education while in school. Is either likely?

[tet4]

Conn. Trooper - why do you think that letting everybody in harlem carry a gun that can legally purchase a gun is a bad idea? I mean, what facts can you cite that support that theory? We have had 30+ states become shall issue with varying degrees of training, many of which have very big cities with some nasty places, and this just hasn't been an issue.

Did you check out TheArmedCitizen.com blog? What did you notice, if anything, about the type of people who are using firearms to protect themselves daily?

The truth is that most people do the right thing when it comes to firearms because there is a threat of life in jail for murder manslaughter if you mess up. To be honest, the people that I see that are unsafe with firearms are usually those that have become complacent with them, not new folks, but maybe that's just me.

[Conn. Trooper]

Because I grew up in NYC and I saw things first hand. Some people do not have the judgement and self control to own a gun. Or they are not sober enough to own a gun. Or they are homeless and have no place to store it. There are plenty of reasons why some people should not own a gun. Does this mean that they will not find a way to kill someone if they want to? No. Does this mean that someone won't get killed with an illegal weapon? No. However, seeing what I saw growing up in the Bronx tells me that there are people that are not felons, and not prevented by law from owning a gun, that should not own a butter knife. Does that sometimes paint everybody with the same brush and catch people that would be responsible gun owners in the same net? Probably. You can't prove something that has never happened, gun laws in NYC are very strict, so we don't know what would happen if everybody had access to guns. Maybe mayhem wouldn't ensue, maybe it would, we are all guessing. My opinion stands, training in the use of a deadly weapons should not be optional.

[tet4]

Most of the classes of people you just described could/should not pass the NICS test. And, if I ever lost my home and had to live on the street, I would definitely want a firearm, obviously, if I had to stay in a shelter, I wouldn't be able to keep it. So, I don't really see that being really a practical problem.

BTW, this thread is about carrying a gun concealed, that you already legally own, in the same way you already can carry open.

As to your point that we don't know what would happen with constitutional carry in NYC, well, we don't, but we have so many success stories around the country that I'd be willing to bet that things would dramatically improve for law abiding citizens and get worse for criminals. If this weren't the case, we would have heard about it from the 30+ shall issue states and the 48 open carry states.

Again, look at the history and the data from other shall-issue and constitutional states. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but if we are looking for the truth, we have to put those aside for long enough to study the facts and history.

[ReNtaPiG]

If a person can go and buy a gun, they should know how to use it. I dont think its unreasonable to expect that someone carrying a firearm is proficiant with it.

I agree to a point on this one...like I mentioned before...it would be the more responsible thing to do to know the ins and outs and consequences of carrying or using a firearm for defensive purposes.

BUT!!! I'm also a firm believer in every person is responsible for their own actions...you don't want to learn the rules...fine!...don't want to learn the laws...fine! come that day you produce that gun according to you to "defend" yourself and its not a "justifiable" situation...that's on you brother!!! not me!

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by wildalaska

I have a right to be free from harm caused by criminals misusing tools.

There, fixed that for ya.
As I stated before, we have done it down here in cactus land for more years than anyone on this board has been alive. Stating that such a law only works where we are shows a complete lack of trust in any of your states residents to own anything that can be misused to cause harm, deadly or otherwise. That's OK, you are most certainly entitled to your position/opinion, as is wildalaska and every other person. I choose not to agree with it, which is my right.

Originally Posted by Antipitas

I can see dropping all the permitting. I can also see requiring firearms education while in school. Is either likely?

That is what we are trying to do, and are getting closer to it every year. The basic law for firearms education in schools are in place, waiting to be made as mandatory as Driver's Ed, which I hope will happen. We also DO have some firearms safety training in those schools fortunate enough to have a JROTC program. If we can get this through now, which is almost a done deal, then get the firearms safety programs into the schools, we can not only solve the education, but help create a new generation of responsible shooters.
I would like to finish by stating I had the NRA hunter/safety course when I was 10, and no formal training until I was in JROTC, then the military. My father taught me how to shoot, and not to shoot, as I am teaching my son. I don't count the training I recieved for my CCW permit - it was poorly done.
We will see here in a few days how this goes.