AZ to Drop CCW Permit Requirement

[Come and take it.]

regardless of what is considered wise or not. It should not be for the government to decide. It is an individuals right to carry. It should have never been regulated.

If we continually attempt to regulate everything for safeties sake, than eventually we will be strapped in a recliner, watching propaganda on public broadcast only TV, drinking milk shakes,

I also support allowing teenagers to have easier access to firearms. When I was growing up we didnt have our guns locked away from us. I had mine on a gunrack in my room and when I could get out I did to go squirrel hunting or shooting. I didnt even tell my parents I was going, it was just something they knew I went about and did for fun. I never even thought of shooting someone with those guns.

In the end a person has to get their hands on a gun without having someone breathing down their neck.

When you have kids being exposed to all they are these days without some kind of moral checks and balances it is not surprising that some of them go nuts. Its not the guns fault. You have a kid playing video games that train them to kill humans etc etc. It is obvious that the thought of killing humans with a gun is always in the back of their mind.

When you are an adult your hormones have calmed down enough that you can be exposed to perpetual violence without an obssessive compulsive tendency to act out what you are exposed to.

regardless it would be best for a person to get out and shoot and hunt rather than to play first person shooters and watch "Commando" on TV.

BTW I am preaching to myself as well as to anyone else.

[sonick808]

what scares me more than anything regarding young adults and kids is the frequency with which SSRI/SNRI antidepressants are handed out to them like candy. Don't like school ? Take this prozac. Kidsp pick on you in gym class ? Here's some celexa.

Every school shooting i've been able to find data on, the shooter had antidepressants in his system.

I think video games CAN be a problem, but usually arent. I was playing video games when i was a kid with a skeet gun in my trunk at all times (including school). Then again, it was an atari 2600....

It's the antidepressants that concern me more than games and rap music.....

[Come and take it.]

Some medications do suppress your ability to feel guilt and remorse for an action or to perceive the guilt or remorse you would anticipate feeling after an action.

[qcpunk]

I'm not sure if this bill is such a good idea.....

As an Arizona state resident, and CCW holder, I definately do not want just "any yahoo" carrying concealed without proper "guidance." The CCW classes are designed to teach a person a few things....

First, it teaches when the use of deadly force is justified. Also, when it is not justified. This is the topic of most concern to me.

Second, it is designed to teach methods of how to handle potentially life threatening situations without agrivating the situation to the point where deadly force is necessary.

Third, it teaches Where you can carry and Where you cannot.

Just because "John Doe"" is of legal status to buy a handgun and carry visibly, does not necessarily mean that "John Doe" has the level of responsibility and knowledge to carry concealed. I think this "person" would actually endanger himself and others. Incuding possibly Me, or ArmoredMan, Sonick. If this "John Doe" has no knowledge regarding over penetration, stress management, and situational awareness, WE, the innocent bystander, may be caught in the crossfire.

I think there is a great deal of responsibility and knowledge REQIURED to carry concealed. The great state of Arizona has always allowed pretty free possession and aquisition of firearms; If you're over 21 and in good legal standing, by all means, go buy that gun you want. Oh you want to carry it around with out without undergoing some type of class, fine, but it has to be visible.

I believe that CCW CLASSES should be mandatory to carry concealed. Besides, the class is affordable, the state processes requests quickly (at least in my case), and it is not overly difficult to obtain a CCW permit in Arizona.

[NavyLT]

qcpunk,

First, the age to obtain handguns and open carry in Arizona is 18, not 21.

Second, the problems you describe simply do not exist in Alaska and Vermont which already have unlicensed concealed carry.

Third, why is there a difference regarding "safety" between an openly carried firearm and a concealed firearm? Please point out how any of the "concerns" that you have change between concealed and open carry:

If this "John Doe" has no knowledge regarding over penetration, stress management, and situational awareness, WE, the innocent bystander, may be caught in the crossfire.

[richiep]

I carry a gun everyday, not because I plan on shooting anyone. Of course there are legal and moral repercussions if you shoot someone that is why you avoid it at all costs. The second admendment should not be restricted. No one would dare to regulate the first. There are people that sit in front of mosques in NY trying to recruit people to "terrorize" americans and its perfectly legal but it disgusts me. I am just saying its funny how the goverment is allowed to manipulate certain admentments. Not to sound paranoid but if someone carries a gun around with bad intentions they are going to did wheather its legal or not, might as well let average joe have a gun to.

[richiep]

I also feel that there is a huge exageration to the effects of medication. It takes like three weeks for that stuff to get into a persons system and if it is a minor they are monitored by parents/guardians.

[foghorn leghorn]

:-) you cant stop a criminal from conceal carrying, and I am sure all would say
that is just the way it is. If guns are outlawed only outlaws...blah blah.
why encourage any regulation that will restrict any rights of the law abiding, in the odd chance that it will trickle down to the non-law abiding.
when they do their crime, they become a criminal, not before. if you say, they are already felons, then having the firearm is a crime, not only when they possess it, but when they have access to it.

Dont hold me down to make the bad guy get an even chance at me.
There's no other way to put it. its a jungle out there, especially in Cochise County.

[qcpunk]

Foghorn, I most certainly do agree with your point regarding criminals. Of course they will continue to obtain, conceal, and use firearms in illegal ways. It wouldn't matter if guns were completely outlawed, they would still get ahold of them. But that's what makes them criminals..... lol

Navy, In Arizona you MUST be 21 years old to purchase handguns and handgun ammunition. However, a person may carry a handgun at 18 years of age. Absolutely agreed.

I definately know some people who have absolutely no business carrying a firearm out in public. Unforunately, after talking with them regarding the proposed bill, they have ever intention of doing so. These are people who have the shortest fuses, extreme "mood swings," and become a liability to the rest of us. And, YES, these are people I know personally. Yes, they currently own one or two guns each; and yes, going out to the desert to shoot them in a safe manner is great, but that is atleast a semi-controlled environment. When asked if they would be willing to take the class anyways (assuming the bill passed), not one of them said "yeah sure." The answer was "Why? I dont have to!" across the board.

All I'm saying here is that a little education goes a long, long way. I don't believe that taking an eight hour class for $80 and mailing in a cashiers check for $60 to DPS is all that difficult. I also don't believe that it, in any way, hinders One's right to own, buy, and enjoy firearms of any type.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by qcpunk

Navy, In Arizona you MUST be 21 years old to purchase handguns and handgun ammunition.

qcpunk, you are confusing the Federal law prohibiting sales of handguns and handgun ammunition BY FFLs to persons under 21 years of age with Arizona statutes. Arizona statutes only prohibit firearms sales/gifts to those under 18 years of age. Thus, in Arizona, a person who is 18 years or older may purchase any firearm and ammunition, handguns included, in private sales from other Arizona residents. If you can post a statute that states otherwise, I would be pleased to see it. For your edification, the applicable Arizona statutes are posted below.

In Arizona you MUST be 18 years old to purchase handguns and handgun ammunition.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...=1&DocType=ARS

1-215. Definitions
In the statutes and laws of this state, unless the context otherwise requires:
22. "Minor" means a person under the age of eighteen years.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...13&DocType=ARS

13-3109. Sale or gift of firearm to minor; classification

A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, a person who sells or gives to a minor, without written consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian, a firearm, ammunition or a toy pistol by which dangerous and explosive substances may be discharged is guilty of a class 6 felony.

B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require reporting sales of firearms, nor shall registration of firearms or firearms sales be required.

C. The temporary transfer of firearms and ammunition by firearms safety instructors, hunter safety instructors, competition coaches or their assistants shall be allowed if the minor's parent or guardian has given consent for the minor to participate in activities such as firearms or hunting safety courses, firearms competition or training. With the consent of the minor's parent or guardian, the temporary transfer of firearms and ammunition by an adult accompanying minors engaged in hunting or formal or informal target shooting activities shall be allowed for those purposes.

In addition, Federal law also permits private handgun/ammunition sales to persons 18 years of age or older:

18 USC 922(x):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...2----000-.html

(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

[qcpunk]

Navy, I would challenge you to find 3 young adults, between the ages of 18 and 20 to go from store to store trying to buy 9x19, .38 special, and .380 ammunition. See what they come up with. I was that age not too long ago, and having been raised with guns of all types in the house, raised as a hunter and shooter from the age of 6, I have dealt with trying to find sidearm ammunition for hunting excursions with brother and friends.

This is all beside the point anyways. The bill proposed has nothing to do with minors, the purchase, or sale of firearms and/or ammunition. My main focus here is the importance of education and responsibility with regards to carrying a concealed handgun......

the problems you describe simply do not exist in Alaska and Vermont

Well, I don't know anything about the people from Vermont, but I do know the great state of Alaska pretty well. And yes, you're absolutely right, these situations are far less common in Alaska. I think there are a few factors at play here, but here is the one that comes most to mind... The population density is FAR less in Alaska than in Arizona, therefore you are less likely to come across such situations or the described persons. Compare that to the Pheonix, being ranked as the 5th most populated city in the nation.

[NavyLT]

Navy, I would challenge you to find 3 young adults, between the ages of 18 and 20 to go from store to store trying to buy 9x19, .38 special, and .380 ammunition. See what they come up with.

qcpunk,

They better come out empty handed, because, as I stated, which you obviously did not digest is that it is against FEDERAL law for a LICENSED dealer to sell handguns or handgun ammunition to persons under 21 years of age. HOWEVER, it is perfectly legal for those 18 to 20 years of age to buy handguns and handgun ammunition from private parties, and handgun ammunition from unlicensed dealers in ammunition.

You, obviously, have very strong feelings about what you think is right, even when shown the FACTS that indicate otherwise. Maybe you should consider opening your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong.

[qcpunk]

Need I quote myself?

This is all beside the point anyways. The bill proposed has nothing to do with minors, the purchase, or sale of firearms and/or ammunition. My main focus here is the importance of education and responsibility with regards to carrying a concealed handgun......

I'm familiar with Red Herrring too.

[NavyLT]

All I'm saying here is that a little education goes a long, long way. I don't believe that taking an eight hour class for $80 and mailing in a cashiers check for $60 to DPS is all that difficult. I also don't believe that it, in any way, hinders One's right to own, buy, and enjoy firearms of any type.

How about this then.... RIGHTS cannot be TAXED and/or limited to those who meet some arbitrary standards set by the government. RIGHTS are those actions which persons are free to exercise without requiring governmental permission. The act of licensing and taxing an action makes that action become a PRIVILEGE that an elite group pays for. And it does not matter how wide or expansive that elite group is, those that pay for the privilege are still more elite than those that don't or can't.

So, do you believe in the RIGHT to BEAR (carry) arms or do you believe in making it a privilege that one must pay a tax to exercise? Is the right to bear arms fulfilled by allowing open carry only without a permit?

[qcpunk]

So, do you believe in the RIGHT to BEAR (carry) arms or do you believe in making it a privilege that one must pay a tax to exercise? Is the right to bear arms fulfilled by allowing open carry only without a permit?

Towards the second question, Yes, I believe so.

I do not believe that it inhibits a person's right to own and bear arms. They still have every right to purchase any firearm they would like, they can even carry openly (almost)where ever they want to go. Nobody is making them pay a tax for that. Nor is anybody forcing them to apply for a CCW.

I just feel that there are people here which take full advantage of the new laws in an unjust manner. I am 24 and my brother is 21. We are both CCW holders. And unforunately, I think there are too many people, especially in our age group, who will jump to the extremes and use deadly force when it is not necessary. Many of these people simply do not possess the maturity to carry concealed.

Maybe to put "these people" into perspective, I am referring to the sort of people discussed in the following thread.... http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=403785 The sort of people which will do whatever they can to start or escalate situations.

But at any rate, I would like to thank Navy, and everyone else for their time on this thread. As you pointed out Navy, I do feel passionately about it, and I appreciate everyone's input and opinions. A round of beers (_)3 to all

[NavyLT]

qcpunk,

I still do not understand how you feel that a shirt covering a firearm changes anything at all. How is a law abiding citizen who is allowed to carry a gun with a shirt over it, without a license, any more dangerous than a law abiding citizen who is allowed to carry that exact same gun, in the exact same places, with a shirt tucked in behind it?

If we are talking about law abiding citizens and not criminals, what difference does a shirt covering the gun make to cause it to be any more dangerous? There are only a few things that are accomplished by requiring a license to conceal carry, when open carry is a free option:

1. It brings revenue to the state.
2. It keeps CCW training instructors in business.
3. It prevents law abiding citizens from exercising the choice to conceal carry if they want too, without having to pay for the privilege.
4. It provides a minor add-on charge to another criminal act - IE, the criminal who possesses a concealed firearm during the commission of another crime.

[qcpunk]

I feel that if a person is a law abiding citizen and has been permitted by the state to carry concealed then I need not know that said person is carrying. That is why we carry concealed, is it not?

If "these people" (from the previous posts) want to open carry, they have every right to. I, and you, can then see that they are carrying and decide for my/your self, whether right or wrong, to avoid such people. That is a personal decision which every person has the right to conculed for themselves.

On the topic of Taxes and Fees, How do you feel about the $200 Federal Stamp required for automatic weapons or supressors. Does that not fall under the 2nd amendment rights? Do you feel that the 2nd amendment is fully supported in this situation?

4. It provides a minor add-on charge to another criminal act - IE, the criminal who possesses a concealed firearm during the commission of another crime

I believe that would be a felony firearms charge, thus revoking their rights to purchase and possess firearms in the future.

[Stevie-Ray]

You lucky dogs.

[ReNtaPiG]

ROCK ON WITH YOUR BAD SELVES!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm totally jealous...instead I must pay the good ole state of FL every 7 yrs

[tet4]

qcpunk - what about the situation where a woman finds out she is getting stalked and needs to carry a gun RIGHT NOW? Unless she can walk into a police station and get a permit issued on the spot, that seems like an infringement to me. Maybe she should have been more prepared, but honestly, we don't need to get permits and wait for 3-6 months for them to talk to people on the street, or to practice our religion...

...and telling her to open carry?

And, as far as open carry only fulfilling the 2A, I don't buy that either. We wouldn't ever get away with saying that people could practice their religion in an open tent freely, but need a special permit to do it in an enclosed space. (After all, if they practice 'concealed' we can't see what they are doing... maybe they are handling snakes or something).

As far as the people you know that you don't trust with guns concealed in public, well, I find it hard to believe that there are people too dangerous to conceal carry but not dangerous enough that they should be allowed to keep guns and ammo in their homes (and open carry for that matter). If they can't be trusted to carry a gun, they shouldn't have them (and conversely, if you can be trusted to own a gun, you should be able to carry as you please).

Even further, there are plenty of states that don't require any training, and they don't seem to have a problem with people carrying. (Alabama, for one).

These are the same arguments used against the repeal of alcohol prohibition, civil rights, woman's suffrage, and shall-issue. They will be used against constitutional carry and are being used against the repeal of the war on pot. It's the inherent disbelief in the good of mankind, and it runs counter to the founding principles of this country.

Now, I completely understand your desire for a better trained population, and I would be in favor of basic gun handling instruction in public schools (eddie eagle program and others) as well as high school and college shooting teams, and a vibrant market place that the state encourages for basic and advanced firearms training and any other measures that the state could help organize and support for VOLUNTARY training and education. But, it needs to be up to each individual on how much training to pursue.

[qcpunk]

Hmm, Tet4 may be on to something there.... Come to think of it, I was enrolled in an Eddie Eagle type firearms class and hunters education. My brother and I were both enrolled by my father, and the class was taught like 2 nights a week at the local elementary for 3 weeks or something like that. Then we all took a trip out to the range, did some rifle shooting and sporting clays.

Are these programs still available?

What do you folks think about incorporating firearms classes straight into the school system? Viable or Liable?

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by qcpunk

On the topic of Taxes and Fees, How do you feel about the $200 Federal Stamp required for automatic weapons or supressors. Does that not fall under the 2nd amendment rights? Do you feel that the 2nd amendment is fully supported in this situation?

That is a very tough question to consider. I believe the 2nd amendment was written to protect the right of the American citizen to protect him/herself against criminal attacks, both by civilian criminals and by criminals operating under the guise of government. So, I guess in light of that belief, I would have to say that I do believe that infringement upon the right to keep and bear supressors and automatic weapons is unconstitutional.

After all, if the government needs to, they will use automatic weapons. I believe the Constitution guarantees the indiviual's right to protection against the governmental use of weapons just as much as the civilian criminal use of weapons.

Now, a couple of states that I believe have absolutely unConstitutional gun laws are Oklahoma and Texas (among the usual other suspects such as California, New Jersey, New York, etc). Oklahoma and Texas also have no means available for a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense OTHER than to pay the state a tax and obtain a license after also having to pay for training. That, to me, is absolutely unacceptable and against the Constitution. So the person who cannot afford to pay such fees has their Constitutional right to self protection stripped from them in those states.

[Conn. Trooper]

Personally I am all for more training in order to carry a gun. If they want to drop the permit and only require training, great, but I would not support anybody carrying/buying concealed or otherwise with no training at all.

Example, I had a guy call the barracks and ask me if he was able to carry bullets in his gun because his permit said "State License to Carry Pistols and Revolvers" and didn't say loaded pistols or revolvers on it. And we REQUIRE the NRA class and he had a permit and still didn't know he could carry a loaded gun.

He called back an hour later and asked if loaded meant a round was allowed in the chamber.

True story.

[NavyLT]

If they want to drop the permit and only require training, great, but I would not support anybody carrying/buying concealed or otherwise with no training at all.

So you don't particularly care for the wording of "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment?

[JustDreadful]

VT and AK have had this system in effect for some time, and don't seem to be awash in blood.

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