Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: HB 2629

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    It seems to me that the wording of this proposal would make it really easy to limit our option to open carry. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me it says that a reasonable person would need to feel that they were in danger to open carry a firearm.

    13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

    A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    B. This section does not apply to a person who:
    1. Points the muzzle of a firearm directly at another person.
    2. Discharges a firearm in the direction of another person.
    3. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force when the person possesses a firearm.
    4. Offensively displays or shows a firearm while verbally threatening another person.

    C. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
    1. Openly wearing, carrying or possessing a firearm.

    2. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
    3. Holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person.

  2. #2
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    radwood wrote:
    It seems to me that the wording of this proposal would make it really easy to limit our option to open carry. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me it says that a reasonable person would need to feel that they were in danger to open carry a firearm.

    13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition

    A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    B. This section does not apply to a person who:
    1. Points the muzzle of a firearm directly at another person.
    2. Discharges a firearm in the direction of another person.
    3. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force when the person possesses a firearm.
    4. Offensively displays or shows a firearm while verbally threatening another person.

    C. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
    1. Openly wearing, carrying or possessing a firearm.

    2. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
    3. Holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person.
    Please don't confuse "offensive" with "defensive" display. We (AzCDL) got this bill introduced so you could use less than lethal force without getting busted for "endangerment" (ARS 13-1201), "threatening and intimidation" (ARS 13-121), "assault" (ARS 13-1203), or "aggravated assualt" (ARS (13-1204).

    Right now, if you diffused a situation by turning so your openly carried gun is visible, you could be busted for an offensive display. The proposed law gives you a legal defense.

    Fred


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    This law makes little sense. Isn't the use or display of force already covered under existing self-defense laws? You are already authorized in the statutes to display and/or use the amount of force that a reasonable person would consider necessary to stop the threat to you or a third party. This law is "toying with open carry" and isa bad law proposal. If a person is threatening you with deadly force, you are already legally authorized to shoot them. If they are threatening you with non-deadly force, you are authorized to use non-deadly force to stop them. That may include pepperspray, a tazer, or simply beating the crap out of them until they leave you alone. I'm not sure what this law is trying to accomplish other than trying to make ordinary open carry illegal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I don't believe that it is a wise idea to use a gun to diffuse a situation that is not involving deadly force. I carry both a firearm and a can of pepperspray for this reason. Both weapons allow me to use force from a distance that applies to the situation. Say for instance that some drunken bar patron is in the parking lot and throws a couple of beer bottles at me which miss me, then he says he is going to kick my ass, and then comes toward me, then I would use the pepperspray which can spray up to a distance of 10 feet. I would not point to my gun or make references to it or pull it out of the holster because in a sense that would be implying deadly force instead of non-deadly force and doesn't look good in a courtroom. The pepperspray is clearly non-deadly and works quite well for such a situation. Say the person actually picks up a beer bottle, threatens to hit me, and then starts coming at me with the bottle in his hand, then I am legally authorized to shoot him which I would do as he is threatening with deadly force. I don't believe in simply "threatening" to use force. You either use force to stop a problem or you get the hell away. The only "threat" should be ONE verbal warning to stop the behavior. An example is "do not come within ten feet of me" or "put the bat down." If they fail to follow the warning and it is safe to use deadly or non-deadly force, then use it. The only time it is tricky is when force is needed and it isn't safe to use because of either innocents in the way or a case of third-party defense where you don't really know 100% what is going on.

  5. #5
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    This law makes little sense. Isn't the use or display of force already covered under existing self-defense laws? You are already authorized in the statutes to display and/or use the amount of force that a reasonable person would consider necessary to stop the threat to you or a third party.
    There is no specific language covering defensive display, just the assumption that it's implied in there somewhere. However, there is plenty of lanugage about "offensive" display which means you are more likely to be arrested for "offensive display." The act of exposing your firearm, or mentioning that you have a gun, or a "display" puts the onus on you to prove that you were the victim not the attacker.When the cops show up and you get into who was the agressor, the LEO and prosecuting attorney will find plenty of specific language to hang you but no specific language to support your claim.

    Current law pretty much allows only two options, (1) don't do anything, or (2) use lethal force. We are attempting to give you a less than lethal option that is backed up by specific language in statute.

    Fred

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    While I understand the basis, and I do agree with it, I can't get past my earlier point. Let me just do some quick substitution:

    Assumption from Paragraph A: The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    Assumption from Paragraph C: defensive display of a firearm = Openly wearing, carrying or possessing a firearm.

    Therefore: The open wearing, carrying or possession of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    To me that says that everyday when I go out right now I would be engaging in "defensive display," as being only 19 my sole option to carry is openly. However, since I am not being threatened with the immediate necessity to prevent unauthorized physical force with physical force on a daily basis, I would not be justified in my "defensive display."

  7. #7
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    radwood wrote:
    While I understand the basis, and I do agree with it, I can't get past my earlier point. Let me just do some quick substitution:

    Assumption from Paragraph A: The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    Assumption from Paragraph C: defensive display of a firearm = Openly wearing, carrying or possessing a firearm.

    Therefore: The open wearing, carrying or possession of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

    To me that says that everyday when I go out right now I would be engaging in "defensive display," as being only 19 my sole option to carry is openly. However, since I am not being threatened with the immediate necessity to prevent unauthorized physical force with physical force on a daily basis, I would not be justified in my "defensive display."
    Yes, the proposed lawis saying thata defensive dispaly is justifed undercertain circumstances and one of those is openly wearing a firearm. It does not say that wheneveryou wear a gun you are only engagedin a defensive display any more than it says when you are pointing the gun at a target at a range you areonly engaged in a defensive display (ARS-421.C.3 "Holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person").

    Under current law, ARS 13-1201, a person seeing your gun could say they feel threatened or intimidated because of your conduct (being 19 and wearing a gun) in their presence. If I recall correctly, this where it's headed in Washington state, wearing a gun has been interpreted as brandishing.

    Fred

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    azcdlfred wrote:
    Yes, the proposed lawis saying thata defensive dispaly is justifed undercertain circumstances and one of those is openly wearing a firearm. It does not say that wheneveryou wear a gun you are only engagedin a defensive display any more than it says when you are pointing the gun at a target at a range you areonly engaged in a defensive display (ARS-421.C.3 "Holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person").

    Under current law, ARS 13-1201, a person seeing your gun could say they feel threatened or intimidated because of your conduct (being 19 and wearing a gun) in their presence. If I recall correctly, this where it's headed in Washington state, wearing a gun has been interpreted as brandishing.

    Fred
    I think I may see how this works now. Would I be correct in understanding that the real lynch-pin here is the word against? Such that my passive carrying wouldn't qualify as defensive display since I'm not actively directing it towards someone like a sort of threat? I guess that's not terrible, though a bit convoluted in my opinion.

    I have to worry about how it would be interpreted in court. I can too easily see a gun grabbing judge viewing it the way I initially did.

  9. #9
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    radwood wrote:
    azcdlfred wrote:
    I think I may see how this works now. Would I be correct in understanding that the real lynch-pin here is the word against? Such that my passive carrying wouldn't qualify as defensive display since I'm not actively directing it towards someone like a sort of threat? I guess that's not terrible, though a bit convoluted in my opinion.

    I have to worry about how it would be interpreted in court. I can too easily see a gun grabbing judge viewing it the way I initially did.
    Yep - "against" is a lynch-pin.

    As far as the interpreation of a gun-grabbing judge, that's anyone's guess. Article II, Section 26 of the AZ Constituion says "shall not be impaired" but an Arizona Appellate Court ruled in in Dano v. Collins back in 1990 than restricting your right to carry concealed was not an "impairment." In 1994 that same court and another court handed down rulings that made open carry and vehicle carry all but illegal without a permit.

    We (AzCDL) are doing whatever we can to restore the right to keep and bear arms in Arizona.

    Fred

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I have noticed that more laws seem to equal less rights and less laws equal more rights. Look at the open carry laws in Arizona. It used to simply be that the ARS never mentioned anything at all about open carry and therefore it was legal without any restrictions. Then they had to add a law clarifying what open carry meant and now you are restricted to open carry onlyin certain ways. There should only be one gun law period and that is the one listed in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. All other issues such as making it illegal to shoot someone or threaten someone when not justified are already included in existing assault, aggrevated assault, and homicide laws. No reason for more gun laws clarifying what already has been clarified. Time and time again as you keep clarifying more of what is permitted and not permitted, it always results in less rights. That is also because the law is left up to a judge and jury (often comprised of idiots) to interpret it. The proposed law clearly defines defensive carry as ordinary open carry and then defines defensive carry as a case where a reasonable person would be concerned about his safety due to a threatening individual. So walking into Fry's grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk while carrying a firearm openly displayed would be illegal according to your proposed law.

    This brings to mind something I am noticing more of lately and that is an anti-gun mentality with the actual gun owner crowd. I've only been recently open carrying and haven't been a gun owner that long either so I guess I am just now finally realizing something. Paranoid gun owners have gotten so brainwashed by the gun-fearing public that they have taken to conceal carry almost exclusively that they actually have a problem with the minority of us who do prefer open carry. I've run into weirdos in public places who can't understand why I open carry as these same people are currently carrying concealed with a special permit. They have asked me if I have a permit to which I say "no." The constitution gives us the right to keep and BEAR arms. If this right is not practiced, it will be lost. I have also had numerous compliments from employees and managers in various establishments that they actually like seeing me there because it improves safety. I will not surrender my open carry regardless of whatever stupid laws you anti-OCers enact. It is a God-given right and supposed to be constitutionally protected. If you are scared of people looking at you and must carry concealed, that is your problem but don't dare tell me how I can carryMY gun.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    This proposed law may also well be unconstitutional according to the state constitution which says: "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."



Posting Permissions

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