Arizona legislature considering Vermont-style carry

[BAC]

Source: New York Times

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried an AR-15 rifle to a protest outside a speech by President Obama.

State Senator Russell Pearce of Arizona, left, says gun laws are only “handcuffing good people.”
Now, gun rights advocates are hoping for even fewer restrictions on where they can have a firearm. Among their top goals is to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Bills in the House and the Senate would also eliminate background checks and training classes for people to carry hidden guns.

“That’s sheer insanity,” said M. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”

But supporters say criminals will carry concealed weapons regardless of the law, so gun restrictions affect only law-abiding citizens.

“All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican sponsoring the bill.

The bill comes a year after Arizona eased restrictions on gun owners, most notably giving people the option of carrying a weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol unless the establishment has banned firearms.

It also comes amid a national trend of states loosening gun laws. In 2009, states passed 47 laws easing restrictions, more than three times the number of new laws tightening them. Forty-eight states allow people to carry a concealed weapon; all but Alaska and Vermont require a permit.

In Arizona, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a misdemeanor. Mr. Pearce’s bill, and an identical one in the House, would make the permit and background check optional. It also would eliminate a required firearms safety class for permit seekers.

“It doesn’t make much sense why someone would have to go through a background check, training, etc., simply to carry their weapon,” said John Wentling, vice president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun rights lobby group that is promoting the bill.

Police departments worry that making permits optional might encourage more people with bad motives to carry concealed weapons, said John Thomas, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. It also could lead to more accidents by people not adequately trained, Mr. Thomas said.

“I’m not aware of any law enforcement agency or association that supports this bill as introduced,” he said.

House and Senate committees were scheduled to hear the bill last week, but the sponsors pulled it to try to address some of the concerns of law enforcement. A similar measure failed last year amid strong opposition from police agencies.

There would still be an advantage to obtaining a permit; carrying a gun into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol would require one, and the permit would be valid in some other states. Permit holders can also buy new guns without a background check.

In all, Arizona lawmakers have introduced about a half-dozen bills aimed at loosening gun laws, including one making it legal to carry a gun in a public park without a concealed-weapons permit. Another would allow college faculty members with permits to carry a gun on campus.

The gun rights bills follow a string of new, less-restrictive gun laws passed last year. They were helped make possible by the elevation of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, to replace Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who vetoed efforts to loosen gun laws until she resigned a year ago to join the Obama administration.

Ms. Brewer last year signed the bill allowing guns in bars; Ms. Napolitano vetoed a similar measure four years earlier.

Ms. Brewer also approved a law allowing gun owners to display a firearm if they feel threatened and another allowing them to keep guns in their locked vehicles while parked at businesses that ban weapons.

Cool. This plus how many states last year following Montana's example...


-B

[Redstarcluster]

Awesome.  And fuck the yuppies.  Writing a death sentence for cops, grandmas, and pedestrians, huh?  Some people just don't get it.

What is it about criminal mentality that some people just do not seem to understand?  Do they think that a gangster is not going to carry his pistol because the law says he can't?

[snowy]

I think that safety training for CCW is a good idea. After all the purpose of carrying a gun is to shoot and kill someone if need be. Cops and Mil folk get training in the subject matter, and I'd consider what a CCWing average Joe to be doing as much the same job of a cop. Why hold citizens to a lower standard?

I'm also enough of a scientist and libertarian to let this experiment run its course.

-snowy

[Recoil]

I think the problem is with the definition and perception of "permit." 

There shouldn't be permits per se, as in some agency permits you to carry.  You should be able to carry regardless of what some government agency says, felons notwithstanding.  However, requiring a safety course and a demo fire isn't unreasonable.  The Second Amendment does indeed say "a well regulated Militia," after all.  They could accomplish all the benefits of the current permit system by just issuing a piece of paper that says, "Yes, Mr. John Doe has demonstrated the responsible use of a firearm and is not a murderer or baby raper.  Sell him all the guns he wants."

[freeman1685]

I live in AZ, and I wait with baited breath for this to pass, it will be the biggest step forward in this state since the "shall issue" law was signed by Fife Symington.

[Recoil]

Iowa has a similar-ish bill in committee right now.  Believe it or not, our Democrat is a co-sponsor.  He's supported shall-issue CCW for years, and it's why I vote for him.  This year it really stands a chance of going through.  In fact, we were at little surprised it didn't make it last year, but it was narrowly defeated by the Democrat majority.  It should be harder to beat this year.

I'll be attending a little get-together he and another local rep (a Republican) are holding soon to let him know why I vote for him and warn him not to fuck me in the future.  I've also got a couple bones to pick with him about some of the provisions in the bill.  They're both decent people, so I'll at least have an attentive audience unlike a lot of the hostile bastards we elect.

[APK]

Constitutional Carry bill is on the Governor desk.

[APK]

SHE SIGNED IT!!!   

 

[Janvier]

Another small step in the right direction. Congrats to Arizona!

[Larry D.]

This will take effect as law 90 days after the legislature recesses, probably August/September.
Recoil, you just about nailed my feelings on the subject with one exception. The fact that one is legal to purchase a firearm should be proof of responsibility. *Note I say should be.*
We all know "legal" owners that we wouldn't trust for squat. I expect that the LEO's & legal system in this state will be hammering people that do stupid things with firearms.
This bill also doesn't cover you for CCW in establishments that serve alcohol (legal w/ CCW permit) or does it allow you to skip the NCIS phone check when purchasing (as a "permit" does)
All in all, I don't foresee wild west shootouts, blood in the streets, mass mayhem, etc. I do hawever, expect to see the crime rate drop a bit.

[Recoil]

Recoil, you just about nailed my feelings on the subject with one exception. The fact that one is legal to purchase a firearm should be proof of responsibility. *Note I say should be.*

I agree that it should be, but we're WAY beyond that level of personal responsibility in this country.  Our society has lost the ethics to handle the responsibility of unrestricted firearms ownership.  When we fight wars over mere words and come up with bullshit like political correctness out of fear of lawsuits, you can't possibly expect that the population at large is mature and responsible enough to buy any gun of any kind, any time they want, without a little due diligence on the state's part.

The Second Amendment very clearly states "well regulated."  Back when the 2A was written, "well regulated" meant musters, shooting tests, and the requirement that the members of the militia were men "in good standing" with the community.  In today's language, that equates to background checks and weapons qualifications, neither of which are infringements because they don't actually restrict you from firearms ownership unless you're a criminal or just plain dangerous in a bad way with a gun.  "Well regulated" also meant that the state provided you with a rifle, but that's another story altogether...

If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me.

[navyrigger46]

I'll bet you see a near immediate drop in the violent crime rate when this takes effect.

Congrats AZ.

Rigger