AZ to Drop CCW Permit Requirement

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
I believe that would be a felony firearms charge, thus revoking their rights to purchase and possess firearms in the future.
 
2ndamend.gif


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

I'm totally jealous...instead I must pay the good ole state of FL every 7 yrs
 
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.
 
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?
 
qcpunk said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...

So you don't particularly care for the wording of "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment?
 
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.
 
It's the inherent disbelief in the good of mankind, and it runs counter to the founding principles of this country.
Click to expand...

@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 :)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 a moderator:
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:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top