Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Arizona Laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    Post Arizona Laws

    Okay, I'll start by saying I'm from somewhere else. I live here now and I'm not real happy with some of the language I'm seeing in the Arizona Statutes. I'm going to post some of the things I've read that are copied directly from:

    http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

    What I want to know is how the rest of my, now fellow, Arizona Residents, as well as any others, feel about some of the things they see coming out of this state's legislation.

    I'll start with the Definitions section of Title 13: the criminal code, Chapter 31: weapons and explosives;

    13-3101. Definitions

    A. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

    1. "Deadly weapon" means anything that is designed for lethal use. The term includes a firearm.

    2. "Deface" means to remove, alter or destroy the manufacturer's serial number.

    3. "Explosive" means any dynamite, nitroglycerine, black powder, or other similar explosive material, including plastic explosives. Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components such as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes.

    4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. Firearm does not include a firearm in permanently inoperable condition.

    5. "Improvised explosive device" means a device that incorporates explosives or destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic or incendiary chemicals and that is designed to destroy, disfigure, terrify or harass.

    6. "Occupied structure" means any building, object, vehicle, watercraft, aircraft or place with sides and a floor that is separately securable from any other structure attached to it, that is used for lodging, business, transportation, recreation or storage and in which one or more human beings either are or are likely to be present or so near as to be in equivalent danger at the time the discharge of a firearm occurs. Occupied structure includes any dwelling house, whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant.

    7. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:

    (a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to self or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

    (b) Who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony or who has been adjudicated delinquent for a felony and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.

    (c) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of imprisonment in any correctional or detention facility.

    (d) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of probation pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense as defined in section 13-3601 or a felony offense, parole, community supervision, work furlough, home arrest or release on any other basis or who is serving a term of probation or parole pursuant to the interstate compact under title 31, chapter 3, article 4.1.

    (e) Who is an undocumented alien or a nonimmigrant alien traveling with or without documentation in this state for business or pleasure or who is studying in this state and who maintains a foreign residence abroad. This subdivision does not apply to:

    (i) Nonimmigrant aliens who possess a valid hunting license or permit that is lawfully issued by a state in the United States.

    (ii) Nonimmigrant aliens who enter the United States to participate in a competitive target shooting event or to display firearms at a sports or hunting trade show that is sponsored by a national, state or local firearms trade organization devoted to the competitive use or other sporting use of firearms.

    (iii) Certain diplomats.

    (iv) Officials of foreign governments or distinguished foreign visitors who are designated by the United States department of state.

    (v) Persons who have received a waiver from the United States attorney general.

    8. "Prohibited weapon":

    (a) Includes the following:

    (i) An item that is a bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or mine and that is explosive, incendiary or poison gas.

    (ii) A device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.

    (iii) A firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

    (iv) A rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen inches, or shotgun with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches, or any firearm that is made from a rifle or shotgun and that, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

    (v) An instrument, including a nunchaku, that consists of two or more sticks, clubs, bars or rods to be used as handles, connected by a rope, cord, wire or chain, in the design of a weapon used in connection with the practice of a system of self-defense.

    (vi) A breakable container that contains a flammable liquid with a flash point of one hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less and that has a wick or similar device capable of being ignited.

    (vii) A chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials, including dry ice, that is possessed or manufactured for the purpose of generating a gas to cause a mechanical failure, rupture or bursting or an explosion or detonation of the chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials.

    (viii) An improvised explosive device.

    (ix) Any combination of parts or materials that is designed and intended for use in making or converting a device into an item set forth in item (i), (vi) or (viii) of this subdivision.

    (b) Does not include:

    (i) Any fireworks that are imported, distributed or used in compliance with state laws or local ordinances.

    (ii) Any propellant, propellant actuated devices or propellant actuated industrial tools that are manufactured, imported or distributed for their intended purposes.

    (iii) A device that is commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination.

    B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and transfer records of the United States treasury department or any firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United States treasury department.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Happy Jack, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    443
    What part do you have a problem with?

    I think our legislators have been doing a pretty good job regarding gun legislation. They have a ways to go but are going in the right direction.

    Where are you from, California?
    If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You get another chance.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    ...I'm not real happy with some of the language I'm seeing in the Arizona Statutes...
    Can you please be more specific? I'd like to help, but...

    For the record, I'm an AZ property owner and frequent visitor.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    More Specific...

    I'm referring to the statutes which make illegal the possession of firearms which are already illegal per federal law, as well as the diplomat exemption, in this case. I don't understand why the state, which many proclaim to be at the forefront of firearms legislation, has laws that mimic federal gun bans. Also, why should a state law exempt diplomats? Are they better than everyone else? Aren't they protected federally?

    My big question is why does this state need laws such as these? If the federal government suddenly changed its laws the residents in Arizona would have to wait until their state lifted the similar statutes in order to enjoy the lower amount of restrictions which would, under those circumstances, be present.

    Just for the record, by the way, I'm from Idaho. ;-)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    That's actually a good question. But as mentioned, have you found that other states do not have these duplicate laws and diplomatic exceptions written in their state laws? I don't know.

    My first GUESS is that they are added by the state at the request of the the Federal government, lest the state lose various allocated Federal tax dollars of some sort.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    I'm referring to the statutes which make illegal the possession of firearms which are already illegal per federal law, as well as the diplomat exemption, in this case. I don't understand why the state, which many proclaim to be at the forefront of firearms legislation, has laws that mimic federal gun bans. Also, why should a state law exempt diplomats? Are they better than everyone else? Aren't they protected federally?

    My big question is why does this state need laws such as these? If the federal government suddenly changed its laws the residents in Arizona would have to wait until their state lifted the similar statutes in order to enjoy the lower amount of restrictions which would, under those circumstances, be present.

    Just for the record, by the way, I'm from Idaho. ;-)
    I was wondering about some too.

    Nunchucks

    (vii) A chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials, including dry ice, that is possessed or manufactured for the purpose of generating a gas to cause a mechanical failure, rupture or bursting or an explosion or detonation of the chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials.

    (Dry ice has an execption in the statutes only if used to create bodily harm or property damage .. I was glad I found that because I was thinking of all the poor kids who could be arrested but this section is too vague. If I do a science experiment with baking soda and vinegar or yeast and sugar in a sealed container I technically broke the law)

    Machine gun, silencers, etc without the NFA stuff.

    What's wrong with the diplomat, hunters, and sports exceptions? Or is it that you feel all non immigrant foreigners and illegals should enjoy the same freedoms we do? I could argue either way on that one.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066

    Citing the Dry Ice law

    A.R.S. 13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

    A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

    1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:

    (a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

    (b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

    2. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or concealed within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation if the person is under twenty-one years of age; or

    3. Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, except that if the violation involves dry ice, a person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly possessing the dry ice with the intent to cause injury to or death of another person or to cause damage to the property of another person; or
    Last edited by sharkey; 07-01-2012 at 04:34 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    Methodical Reading

    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    What's wrong with the diplomat, hunters, and sports exceptions? Or is it that you feel all non immigrant foreigners and illegals should enjoy the same freedoms we do? I could argue either way on that one.
    I'm going to make an example of you, please don't get offended, this is just something a lot of people do. Please read that section more carefully and I think you'll understand why I have a problem with it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    Other States

    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That's actually a good question. But as mentioned, have you found that other states do not have these duplicate laws and diplomatic exceptions written in their state laws? I don't know.

    My first GUESS is that they are added by the state at the request of the the Federal government, lest the state lose various allocated Federal tax dollars of some sort.
    It's understandable that one wouldn't know the laws of other states unless they regularly travelled there or had some other real interest. I have found, throughout my travels to most of the country, that Idaho has the least restrictive laws concerning firearms of any state, I have visited. While it's certainly possible that Arizona may have passed laws similar to the federal laws because of some funding deal I find it less and less likely every time I read a different state's laws. They all vary greatly.

  10. #10
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    A.R.S. 13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

    A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

    1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:

    (a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or

    (b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or

    2. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or concealed within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation if the person is under twenty-one years of age; or

    3. Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, except that if the violation involves dry ice, a person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly possessing the dry ice with the intent to cause injury to or death of another person or to cause damage to the property of another person; or
    Good footwork, this was another point I was hoping to discuss. Why do there need to be laws in place which punish those who have caused no actual harm? These parts of the Misconduct statute reflect California's laws very closely. Albiet there are some very important differences, such as transporting a firearm is only actually restricted for someone under the age of 21 in section 2, there seems to be a trend in most of Arizona's Statute language which favors prosecuting people who have a means to commit a crime, yet have not actually done so.

    It just seems like this line of thinking leads in the direction of putting public safety in the hands of one small group of people, which is nothing short of a bad idea. That whole sacrificing liberty for safety thing comes to mind.

  11. #11
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    More Suggestions

    I want anyone reading this thread or posting here to know I have many more sections of Arizona law to cover. My purpose in posting these things on this forum is to hopefully inspire some phone calls to Representatives and Senators. If you have read a statute you think is unnecessary or needs attention please feel free to post it.

    Also, for those of you who are interested in reading the laws yourself, here's the link:

    http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

    Most of the firearms laws are in Chapter 13, the guns at work statute is in Chapter 12 or here:

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....12&DocType=ARS

    And the Alcohol licensing is in Chapter 4.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Some of these noobs who move down here would complicate soup. Be glad you can carry arms in self defense w/o permit and hassle. It's in the AZ State Constitution Art 2 Sec 26. 'Been that way since statehood. NFA 1934 banned full auto.

    You can always go back to Idaho...

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    Some of these noobs who move down here would complicate soup. Be glad you can carry arms in self defense w/o permit and hassle. It's in the AZ State Constitution Art 2 Sec 26. 'Been that way since statehood. NFA 1934 banned full auto.

    You can always go back to Idaho...
    Um, so carrying openly and concealed has been lawful in AZ since statehood? Or am I misreading your post?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    ... I have found, throughout my travels to most of the country, that Idaho has the least restrictive laws concerning firearms of any state, I have visited. While it's certainly possible that Arizona may have passed laws similar to the federal laws because of some funding deal I find it less and less likely every time I read a different state's laws. ....
    Since you probably have it already at hand, can you post the relative Idaho laws? Are you saying they are similar but don't contain the duplicate Federal laws or diplomatic exemptions?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  15. #15
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    My purpose in posting these things on this forum is to hopefully inspire some phone calls to Representatives and Senators. If you have read a statute you think is unnecessary or needs attention please feel free to post it.
    If you want to be part of an organized effort that has been (and still is) successful in improving Arizona's gun laws, I invite you to join AzCDL .

    If you would prefer to go it alone, you are welcome to use AzCDL's Legislative Action Center to contact your state legislators, federal officials, and even the media.

    Fred

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Um, so carrying openly and concealed has been lawful in AZ since statehood? Or am I misreading your post?
    'People been carryin' arms here since before there was an Arizona. (1848/1854) thru the Confederacy and the Arizona Territory 'til statehood in 1912. At which time the AZ Constitution was ratified. (Art 2 Sec 26) in wording identical to Washington State.

    'The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    The CWP permit wasn't initiated until 1994 primarily to allow for 'Zonies to carry beyond the state border where OC was forbidden. Prior to '94... people just 'carried'. You were either heeled or not and it wasn't an issue how. That's what actual rights are. There were some activist judges who became meddlesome with California influence but that nonsense is over with.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 07-02-2012 at 01:26 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Um, so carrying openly and concealed has been lawful in AZ since statehood? Or am I misreading your post?
    Adding to Sonora Rebel's comments. You can read a short version of how Arizona got a CCW law at AzCDL's website. Go to our Accomplishments web page and scroll down to the CCW portion.

    You'll find a longer version on page 4 of AzCDL's November 2011 newsletter, which talks about some of the other court decisions which threatened open carry.

    The court decisions can be found on AzCDL's Educational Page.

    Fred

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    The CWP was more about 'MONEY' than anything else. (Always is) I have one...it'll expire this coming December. I may renew it... 'cause I go to Texas now 'n then.

  19. #19
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    The CWP was more about 'MONEY' than anything else. (Always is) I have one...it'll expire this coming December. I may renew it... 'cause I go to Texas now 'n then.
    Like every other state - it's all about control. Money isn't part of the equation.

    From my perspective, the originial CWP was designed to discourage people from carrying a firearm, and the statistics bore it out. In 2005 when we formed AzCDL, only about 67,000 permits had been issued in the 10 years since the process was implemented. That's not much revenue - but it was a lot of control because the process was so onerous very few people wanted to go through the hassle.

    Couple that with the Adams and Moerman decisions that made open carry safe only with a permit and Arizona was becoming California with cactii via stealth gun control.

    Gun owner apathy was high. Moving from Virginia, I was amazed at the lousy gun laws in this state that everyone seemed to willingly accept. It was an example of the boiling frog analogy. However, a few of us weren't accepting the status quo and AzCDL was formed.

    Fred

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post
    Like every other state - it's all about control. Money isn't part of the equation.

    From my perspective, the originial CWP was designed to discourage people from carrying a firearm, and the statistics bore it out. In 2005 when we formed AzCDL, only about 67,000 permits had been issued in the 10 years since the process was implemented. That's not much revenue - but it was a lot of control because the process was so onerous very few people wanted to go through the hassle.

    Couple that with the Adams and Moerman decisions that made open carry safe only with a permit and Arizona was becoming California with cactii via stealth gun control.

    Gun owner apathy was high. Moving from Virginia, I was amazed at the lousy gun laws in this state that everyone seemed to willingly accept. It was an example of the boiling frog analogy. However, a few of us weren't accepting the status quo and AzCDL was formed.

    Fred

    Before the internet, there was little information on legislative changes unless you really stayed on top of this stuff via snail mail from reps. People continued to carry as always
    pretty much oblivious to whatever the hell was gong on in the legislature (unreported by the pinko media). People just 'carried' as always. the only people who seemed to be all paranoid about 'law' were the noobs who brought this legal clutter baggage with 'em. That included the legislature. The culture was/is not part and parcel to that stuff. It was/is the noobs who made a stink about it. See... the thing with a 'right' is that you don't think about it. It just 'is. You just do it (or not) 'cause you'e been used to it as a norm. All this what yoiu can do... or can't do in reality has little effect on what we actually 'do'. People still drink while armed 'cause they always have. They might cover up... but that's for the noobs. They carry where there are no gun signs and GFZ's 'n all that drama concealed and sometimes... not. The 'not' being where the proprietor really doesnt care. Like no smoking... Much of AZ is 'off-pavement''... and still free. Not politically correct is it? Not 'legal' either... but that's only where anybody gives a rats butt for proper decorum 'n all that. Real freedom still exists off pavement... you just have to find it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Question MI allows carry in municipal buildings, but AZ does not? Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by TOF View Post
    What part do you have a problem with?

    I think our legislators have been doing a pretty good job regarding gun legislation. They have a ways to go but are going in the right direction.

    Where are you from, California?
    Hello All,

    Michigan here (on the gritty edge of Detroit ) -

    My issue with Arizona Law is the restriction on carry in municipal buildings.

    http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...dings-advances (Vetoed by Gov. Brewer)

    AZ is vastly better in gun law than MI except for in this regard. We can carry in all State, local gov. buildings except for courts & jails. It's been this way for years. Guess what no armed mobs over taking city halls or police stations. It pains me that your state - which is often so far ahead of others is "so afraid" of the common people that they (state / local officials) strip someone of their right to self defense in "their" buildings??? I was pondering on this last month while I & 30 others sat armed in a city of Birmingham MI. commission/council meeting to show support for a young man who was falsely arrested & jailed for open carrying.

    http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...irmingham?lite
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 07-15-2012 at 08:25 AM. Reason: Add links about AZ HB 2729 & BPD protest
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  22. #22
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock9mmOldStyle View Post
    My issue with Arizona Law is the restriction on carry in municipal buildings.
    Join AzCDL and help us fight it

    Fred

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post
    Join AzCDL and help us fight it

    Fred
    Fred - I look forward to becoming a member. I have family in Glendale, so I do have a dog in this fight. Not to mention a right denied to any law abiding citizen is a right denied to ALL law abiding citizens. We must stick together as there is great strength in numbers.

    Regards,

    - G9OS
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Since you probably have it already at hand, can you post the relative Idaho laws? Are you saying they are similar but don't contain the duplicate Federal laws or diplomatic exemptions?
    I'll do ya one better, since there's a lot to read, here's the link to Title 18, Chapter 33 of the Idaho code:
    http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH33.htm

    Also, SonoraRebel, I'd happily go back to Idaho if there was a job there for me. Arizona isn't bad but I have my complaints.

  25. #25
    Regular Member lysander6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    74
    I like where clarkebar is going with this. Like him, I am an ID expat who can find work in AZ and would be happy to return if I could find work in ID.

    I am a member of AzCDL and happy for the work they do.

    I go a step further, I want to see all the laws eliminated over time for firearms except for the commission of a crime using them while we have this worthless and vile criminal justice system in AZ and Amerika. I hope eventually we will see that criminal law is vastly inferior to civil law in creating a peaceful society.

    I also want to see AZ make all Federal laws within its borders void and null, to include firearms laws. A reverse preemption as it were that locks out all Federal tentacles at the border.

    So, carry on, clarkebar.
    Gun Control is Mind Control.

    My Blog: http://zerogov.com/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •