AZ to Drop CCW Permit Requirement

Conn. Trooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
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.
 
armoredman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
JustDreadful nailed it.
It's immoral to say that someone whose commitment to firearms proficiency doesn't match yours has no right to defend him/herself.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Conn. Trooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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? .
Click to expand...

My answer to this question is a resounding YES.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. :D
 
Conn. Trooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
"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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top