Arizona House approves concealed carry bill

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or go to a gun show and buy from a private seller in a state like Arizona that doesn't require a NICS check for such sales.

Or get them from the thug down on the corner or from family - you know, like 80% of the crime guns.

Quote

Or get a buddy to make a straw purchase for them.

Or their relatives, like Sarah Brady making a straw purchase for her son.

So now you're backtracking and admitting that they CAN purchase a gun without a NICS check, contrary to your previous lie claim.

Sure can. In much the same way you can purchase cocaine... Ilegaly

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

Then why is he out in general public?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[millertime24 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or go to a gun show and buy from a private seller in a state like Arizona that doesn't require a NICS check for such sales.

Or get them from the thug down on the corner or from family - you know, like 80% of the crime guns.

Quote

Or get a buddy to make a straw purchase for them.

Or their relatives, like Sarah Brady making a straw purchase for her son.

So now you're backtracking and admitting that they CAN purchase a gun without a NICS check, contrary to your previous lie claim.

Sure can. In much the same way you can purchase cocaine... Ilegaly

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

See thats my point. You aren't going to stop shady people selling other shady people guns obtained through illegal avenues. All us semi-normal people can do is to keep doing things the legal way and try to keep the crims from doing harm to us. I personally wouldn't really have any issues with a law stating that you have to transfer a gun via FFL. Keeps everything legal and everyones asses covered.

Muff #5048

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

I personally wouldn't really have any issues with a law stating that you have to transfer a gun via FFL. Keeps everything legal and everyones asses covered.

That's because you are a reasonable person.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

So please (please!) answer directly: what's wrong with mandating that the only people who can carry concealed are those who have passed a criminal.mental health background check? I hope you'll answer this directly now.

I'm guessing that the rationale is that anyone who has a concealable weapon has already passed the background check when it was purchased, so performing the same check again on the law abiding citizens is wasteful spending and criminals just bypass the process all together. I would further guess that unlawful possession laws remain the same - although it would seem to make sense to make them harsher.

I'm very interesting in Dave's opinion on this - from his perspective.

btw - funny you thought you could get rational discourse on this subject.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

So please (please!) answer directly: what's wrong with mandating that the only people who can carry concealed are those who have passed a criminal.mental health background check? I hope you'll answer this directly now.

I'm guessing that the rationale is that anyone who has a concealable weapon has already passed the background check when it was purchased,.

That's a seriously flawed assumption.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So please (please!) answer directly: what's wrong with mandating that the only people who can carry concealed are those who have passed a criminal.mental health background check? I hope you'll answer this directly now.

I'm guessing that the rationale is that anyone who has a concealable weapon has already passed the background check when it was purchased,.

That's a seriously flawed assumption.

Correct - meant to say anyone who legally has a concealable weapon

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What are the public policy justifications for this bill?
Let's assume the state has a "must issue CCW permit" law. In that event:
-What's wrong with a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a criminal record or mental illness flag?
-What's wrong with some method (or various alternative methods) for assuring the person knows how to use the gun safely?
- Making it a crime to carry w/o a permit has at least one salutary purpose: if a cop stops & frisks someone who's acting suspiciously, and he's carrying a gun w/o a permit - and the reason he has no permit is because he's a convicted criminal or has a mental health flag, that allows the cop to stop the person cold right there instead of releasing him.

If you believe in the freedom to bear arms, than having to obtain a "license" flies in the face of it.

[millertime24 8]

You know, this thread really got my thinking wheels turning. Heres what Ive come up with. EVERYONE who buys a gun regardless of point of sale ect should have it transfered via a FFL no if's and's or but's. That being said, NOBODY who LEGALY buys a gun this way should have to have a special permit or license to carry the gun that they've already had a background check for concealed or not. I know this is a pipe dream due to different states independently implimenting their own gun laws, but in a perfect world this idea should completely work.

Muff #5048

[AggieDave 6]

Overall this reminds me of the "Castle Doctrine" that was passed in Texas and put into law in the last few years. The "Castle Doctrine" basically allows for someone who is legal to own a handgun to carry a handgun, concealed, in their vehicle with no permit. Assuming that the reason why the individual was being contacted while in possession of the weapon in their vehicle was for a Class C traffic offense only.

There are several parallels between this and the new bill in Arizona. Firstly, it allows for possessing a concealed weapon with out a permit, assuming you are legal to own one and that you are possessing the weapon with in the confines of the law. Secondly, it really doesn't address any further sanctions for the unlawful carrying of a weapon with in the specific language of that section, since that offense has been previous addressed in other aspects of the state's law.

This is enabling the average law abiding citizen the opportunity to protect themselves as they see fit. Furthermore, it isn't enabling those who are previously unable to own as weapon, the law would decriminalize an act that was being committed by otherwise up standing persons whose only crime was to protect themselves.

The thread digressed as it usually does in this forum, with the usual players making the same arguments about purchasing weapons and the ownership of a weapon, instead of focusing on the proposed legislation.

Professionally I have contacted numerous armed individuals many times over the past few years. Some were legal to own and carry a weapon, some were not. Through out each instance the person who had taken a well thought out plan for their personal safety and were legally in possession of a handgun, were by and far decent (and average) people living in a real world. Those who were carrying or in possession of a weapon in which they were not legal to possess all also had something in common. None of those weapons had been acquired through legal means. Many of them were stolen firearms. Some were unidentifiable due to the destruction of identifying marks. Some were purchased illegally through a 3rd party. Seemingly no amount of new law will prevent those who would act illegally from doing so, only stricter penalties and a judicial system that will fully carry the penalties out to full term will help solve those issues.

Those are just the instances in which it became known that a weapon was present.

So in regards to the thought of allowing law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, I say it is a good thing. Even more so with the current economical state of state and local governments, in which law enforcement budgets have been drastically cut, the average law abiding citizen needs to determine what level of protection they are willing to provide for themselves and their family. If that protection is hope for help on the end of a phone line and a prayer of a timely response, then that is fine for that individual. If that protection means that the law abiding citizen takes measures to arm against those who would do them and their family harm, then that is fine for that individual.

However, for those who fully believe that in their time of crisis that help will be available and arrive in seconds, I invite them to conduct a ride along with their local law enforcement. Moreover, I would fully encourage every person to do the same. The experience will be rewarding.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

funny you thought you could get rational discourse on this subject.

worth a shot

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

Quote

You know, this thread really got my thinking wheels turning. Heres what Ive come up with. EVERYONE who buys a gun regardless of point of sale ect should have it transfered via a FFL no if's and's or but's. That being said, NOBODY who LEGALY buys a gun this way should have to have a special permit or license to carry the gun that they've already had a background check for concealed or not. I know this is a pipe dream due to different states independently implimenting their own gun laws, but in a perfect world this idea should completely work.

In a perfect world, sure.

But remember that back in the 90s the Clinton administration dramatically increased the fees to renew FFLs in a deliberate (and successful) effort to reduce them.
And although the government is supposed to destroy the records created by the background checks, they have consistently failed to do so (in clear violation of the law).

So fewer dealers to go through and de facto registration by background check info.
Sorry, but I don't trust the government that much.

And I wouldn't be happy being forced to pay for a transfer if I was giving the weapon away (say to my nephew when he gets old enough).

Most of my guns were purchased through FFLs, and several of them surrendered their FFL when the price got outrageous. Those records went to the BATF, so all those transactions are now in government hands.

I have friends who have never purchased a gun through a licensed dealer. Never had a background check run, no record of a purchase that could end up in the hands of the government (and none of the purchases were at gun shows either).

A little paranoid? Perhaps, but certainly understandable.

In theory I could see a "Firearms Owner" card (somewhat similar to Illinois) where a person has to demonstrate a knowledge of safety and laws and perhaps demonstrate a certain level of skill.

But that would be similar to intelligence/knowledge tests for voters. It's too easy for unscupulous government regulators to use it to deny certain people (or groups of people) their rights.

Research a little history on gun laws. The first one was in Maryland - restricting gun ownership by Catholics. Later, in the south after the Civil War, many gun laws were designed to disarm freed slaves. And there were voter "tests" and poll taxes intended to deny them that right too.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[1969912 0]

Quote

A little paranoid? Perhaps, but certainly understandable.

Very understandable.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

State requirement or not. It just makes good sense for a private seller to tranfere a firearm this way. That way if there is ever a crime committed with the gun the sellers hands are clean and its up to the purchaser to provide an explination. I would never sell anyone a gun without using a FFL for the transfere. The way I figure it, if the buyer insists on NOT using a FFL then theres a pretty damn good chance I dont really want to be linked with selling them a firearm.

I'd insist you pay for the FFL's services or NOT use the FFL.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

Excellent. You've just summed up the reason most laws restricting firearms are useless at preventing crime.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

Excellent. You've just summed up the reason most laws restricting firearms are useless at preventing crime.

Same applies to laws against bank robbery (Bank robbers ignore them), rape (rapists ignore them), kidnapping (kidnappers ignore them), murder (murderers ignore them), fraud (con-men ignore them) and the list can go on and on.

So you are really arguing for no laws at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

What are the public policy justifications for this bill?
Let's assume the state has a "must issue CCW permit" law. In that event:
-What's wrong with a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a criminal record or mental illness flag?
-What's wrong with some method (or various alternative methods) for assuring the person knows how to use the gun safely?
- Making it a crime to carry w/o a permit has at least one salutary purpose: if a cop stops & frisks someone who's acting suspiciously, and he's carrying a gun w/o a permit - and the reason he has no permit is because he's a convicted criminal or has a mental health flag, that allows the cop to stop the person cold right there instead of releasing him.

Arizona is already an open carry state. The part you quote regards a CCW license.

The law puts the people who want to CCW on the same footing as the people who carry openly.

Basically omits theneed to attend the CCW classs.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

What are the public policy justifications for this bill?
Let's assume the state has a "must issue CCW permit" law. In that event:
-What's wrong with a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a criminal record or mental illness flag?
-What's wrong with some method (or various alternative methods) for assuring the person knows how to use the gun safely?
- Making it a crime to carry w/o a permit has at least one salutary purpose: if a cop stops & frisks someone who's acting suspiciously, and he's carrying a gun w/o a permit - and the reason he has no permit is because he's a convicted criminal or has a mental health flag, that allows the cop to stop the person cold right there instead of releasing him.

If you believe in the freedom to bear arms, than having to obtain a "license" flies in the face of it.

I believe in it, just that the constitution doesn't specify that as a blank check. If the FF wanted that they would have just made the statement: "The right to bear arms shall never be abridged." They didn't, they made reference to militias and well regulation. Of course we can just ignore parts and the rest is clear.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

Excellent. You've just summed up the reason most laws restricting firearms are useless at preventing crime.

Same applies to laws against bank robbery (Bank robbers ignore them), rape (rapists ignore them), kidnapping (kidnappers ignore them), murder (murderers ignore them), fraud (con-men ignore them) and the list can go on and on.

So you are really arguing for no laws at all.

Wow. You once again prove your ignorance or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Laws are not created as a deterrent. They are created so that law enforcement and the courts can deal with criminals after the fact.

If laws were a deterrent to all people, we would not have any crime. Luckily we have laws that are used to deal with the people that choose not to follow the laws.

Edit to ad: There are people that believe that by passing a law it will prevent people from breaking that law. They are sadly mistaken and living in a fantasy world. Name one law on the books no one has ever broken?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You once again prove your ignorance or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Laws are not created as a deterrent. They are created so that law enforcement and the courts can deal with criminals after the fact.

Penal laws have both purposes.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

You once again prove your ignorance or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Laws are not created as a deterrent. They are created so that law enforcement and the courts can deal with criminals after the fact.

Penal laws have both purposes.

Quote

Criminal Law or penal law, involves prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime. It is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses.

Not sure I follow? But I added this to my post and you probably didn't see it.

Quote

Edit to ad: There are people that believe that by passing a law it will prevent people from breaking that law. They are sadly mistaken and living in a fantasy world. Name one law on the books no one has ever broken?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I believe in it, just that the constitution doesn't specify that as a blank check.

Oh really?

Senate report on the Second Amendment

Quote

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to the state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected against infringement by both.

Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights — as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to the organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constituted, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.

That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a).

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Quote

If the FF wanted that they would have just made the statement: "The right to bear arms shall never be abridged."

What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" gave you trouble?

Quote

They didn't, they made reference to militias and well regulation.

Sorry, I think I'll take Mr. Copperud's interpretation (as well as the Congressional Subcommittee on the Constitution) over yours.
Linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment

Quote

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.



[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Quote

Of course we can just ignore parts and the rest is clear.

That does seem to be your M.O. - misinterpretation, that is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

All penal laws and their penalty schemes have multiple purposes. They variously include, among other things, general deterrence (deterring society at large), specific deterrence (deterring specific people or specific sub-groups of people), retribution (revenge; "just desserts", etc.), incapacitation (preventing the offender from offending by locking him up or executing him), general restitution (paying back society), specific restitution (paying back the victim for his loss), rehabilitation (just what it sounds like).

The fact that some people still violate existing laws does not negate the existence of any of this. Deterrence does work; all of the above work - to a certain degree. They just don't work 100%. The fact that a given penal law only deters some people and not all people does not mean that it deters no people. There are no absolutes in this context.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If you believe in the freedom to bear arms, than having to obtain a "license" flies in the face of it.

I believe in it, just that the constitution doesn't specify that as a blank check. If the FF wanted that they would have just made the statement: "The right to bear arms shall never be abridged." They didn't, they made reference to militias and well regulation. Of course we can just ignore parts and the rest is clear.

It must be hard thinking you're knowledgeable in so many areas and falling short in all of them. Failing to understand definitions like militia or regulated doesn't serve you well.

There's really one big problem with removing any licensing on the CCW - you diminish the ability to measure success. We know that CCW permit holders are highly law abiding citizens, and with millions in the set, it's quite compelling, and quite devastating to Brady lies. But with no records of how many carriers there would be, you now go back to an environment where the NRA and the Brady fucks can make up data to progress their agendas.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

All penal laws and their penalty schemes have multiple purposes. They variously include, among other things, general deterrence (deterring society at large), specific deterrence (deterring specific people or specific sub-groups of people), retribution (revenge; "just desserts", etc.), incapacitation (preventing the offender from offending by locking him up or executing him), general restitution (paying back society), specific restitution (paying back the victim for his loss), rehabilitation (just what it sounds like).

The fact that some people still violate existing laws does not negate the existence of any of this. Deterrence does work; all of the above work - to a certain degree. They just don't work 100%. The fact that a given penal law only deters some people and not all people does not mean that it deters no people. There are no absolutes in this context.

Proof that robbers ignore laws against robbery.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

Excellent. You've just summed up the reason most laws restricting firearms are useless at preventing crime.

Same applies to laws against bank robbery (Bank robbers ignore them), rape (rapists ignore them), kidnapping (kidnappers ignore them), murder (murderers ignore them), fraud (con-men ignore them) and the list can go on and on.

So you are really arguing for no laws at all.

Wow. You once again prove your ignorance or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Laws are not created as a deterrent. They are created so that law enforcement and the courts can deal with criminals after the fact.

If laws were a deterrent to all people, we would not have any crime. Luckily we have laws that are used to deal with the people that choose not to follow the laws.

Edit to ad: There are people that believe that by passing a law it will prevent people from breaking that law. They are sadly mistaken and living in a fantasy world. Name one law on the books no one has ever broken?

You are seriously missing the point, as usual.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.