Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Traveling to Tucson in October

  1. #1
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    I am going to Tucson in Oct and want to Open Carry. Being from CA it is a given that I don't have a CCW (and nobody recognizes CA CCW anyhow).

    Once I hit the border, I assume I can open carry pretty much anywhere other than schools, places that serve alcohol, etc.?

    While driving, is there any special things I need to watch out for? Can I carry in a belt holster, even if the seatbelt might partially hide the firearm?

    How about if I drive my Pontiac Solstice? I sit pretty low and the center console would definitely make the gun difficult to see.

    What about carrying into a Hotel that has a bar in it. Does the "serving alcohol" clause apply only to the bar, or does it apply to the whole hotel.

    I have California Open Carry down, just don't want to violate any laws I am unfamiliar with in AZ.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Actually, some states do recognize California concealed carry permit, and AZ is one of them. AZ recognizes EVERY state's CCW, UNLESS you are an AZ resident. In that case, you must have an AZ CCW.

    Here are some of the places where it is not legal to carry:
    Any establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on premises, including restaurants (so you can carry in a liquor store, but not a bar).
    Schools, which includes K-12
    Polling Place on election day
    Any state or local government facility that is posted- facility must provide secure, accessible storage ( I believe)
    Business that are posted. Even if a business is not posted, if a manager or owner asks you to leave or disarm, you must do so.

    There are others, but I can't think of them at the moment.

    For hotels that have a bar, the only exception mentioned in the law is guest rooms, so I interpret that to mean that you cannot carry in the hotel except in your room. Not sure what the law is for coming into the hotel to go to your room, and leaving, but I'd assume that SOME kind of accommodation exists.

    As far as the car, I'm not sure about when it's on your person, but you can put the gun in the glove box or in the center console, and it's not considered to be concealed.

    All in all, Arizona is pretty laid back about guns, including LEOs.

    ETA: Keep in mind that I am not an attorney, and nothing in this post should be interpreted as legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Hotels, motels... OC anywhere... 'cept 'in' the bar if it has one. I carry cross draw so that the pistol does not interfere with the seatbelt. OC is OK while driving. I OC daily... everywhere not otherwise prohibited.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Hotels, motels... OC anywhere... 'cept 'in' the bar if it has one. I carry cross draw so that the pistol does not interfere with the seatbelt. OC is OK while driving. I OC daily... everywhere not otherwise prohibited.
    I think you better brush up on the law in AZ.

    Didn't run into any trouble while in Tucson, however, I did find out from more reading that current case law in AZ reads that if a person can't see your gun from outside the car, then it is considered concealed.

    Thanks to State v. Adams and State v. Moerman (http://www.azcdl.org/html/educational.html )conditions like "obvious to a casual observer" also come into play when reading ARS 13-3102.F. In a vehicle that has come to mean that it is obvious to someone outside the vechicle that there is a gun inside the vechicle.

    ARS 13-3102.F (second sentence) deals with carrying in a car but the Adams decision pretty much negated carrying in a car without a permit. But last session AzCDL succeeded in having the words "map pocket" added into the law as a place to carry a holstered gun. The new wording is subsequent to the Adams decision but map pocket is not defined. It appearsit is being interpretedthat any compartment in a car is a "map pocket" - which gets us back to carrying a holstered gun in the glove compartment, until another activist anti-gun judge determines otherwise.

    HB 2389 would have eliminated these, but the Governor vetoed it on 7/7/08.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    I think you better brush up on the law in AZ.

    Didn't run into any trouble while in Tucson, however, I did find out from more reading that current case law in AZ reads that if a person can't see your gun from outside the car, then it is considered concealed.

    Thanks to State v. Adams and State v. Moerman (http://www.azcdl.org/html/educational.html )conditions like "obvious to a casual observer" also come into play when reading ARS 13-3102.F. In a vehicle that has come to mean that it is obvious to someone outside the vechicle that there is a gun inside the vechicle.

    HB 2389 would have eliminated these, but the Governor vetoed it on 7/7/08.
    I wouldn't say "is considered concealed," I'd say, "could be considered concealed." I've never met a cop who would consider it concealed, and I carry on my hip in my car all the time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    I think you better brush up on the law in AZ.

    Didn't run into any trouble while in Tucson, however, I did find out from more reading that current case law in AZ reads that if a person can't see your gun from outside the car, then it is considered concealed.

    Thanks to State v. Adams and State v. Moerman (http://www.azcdl.org/html/educational.html )conditions like "obvious to a casual observer" also come into play when reading ARS 13-3102.F. In a vehicle that has come to mean that it is obvious to someone outside the vechicle that there is a gun inside the vechicle.

    HB 2389 would have eliminated these, but the Governor vetoed it on 7/7/08.
    I wouldn't say "is considered concealed," I'd say, "could be considered concealed." I've never met a cop who would consider it concealed, and I carry on my hip in my car all the time.
    Well, you have just admitted in a public forum that you violate Arizona Law all the time. Not the best move in the world.

    I was not talking what an individual cop might think, or the action that cop might not take. I am talking about the current status of the actual LAW.

    LEGALLY, under the current statutes and as defined by case law, in court, it is considered a concealed weapon.

    It might be unlikely that a cop would arrest for having a gun on the hip in a car, but it is possible.

    One of the primary rules of this forum is to NEVER advocate the intentional breaking of the law. So what I was looking for in my initial post was some answers on what the LAW was. So I stated "I have California Open Carry down, just don't want to violate any laws I am unfamiliar with in AZ."

    Unlike here in California where the cops will likely arrest you for something that may not be supported by the actual law as written or defined by case law, in Arizona, it looks like the cops actually won't arrest you for something that is clearly defined by existing case law.

    However, if as I was told in the second responce,"OC is OK while driving" and I happen to run into a cop who happens to have just transfered in from New York, and has a thing against citizens withguns,then legally, I am screwed, and I could be arrested, tried, and would probably get convicted for carrying a concealed weapon.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Well... y'all come to the AZ forum and ask Arizonans... then tell 'em they're WRONG? You might wonder why we don't like Californians heremuch.'What'd ya expect... we duct tape 'em to the windows? Wear shoulder holsters? I wear a2.5" GUN BELT... not any sort of IWB/OWB stuff.'Get stopped... inform the LEO you're armed/heeled. Keep both hands on the wheel. He'll ask 'where'. You tell him 'where'. That's all it takes.

    You already know it all... yet understand nothing. Bye!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Hotels, motels... OC anywhere... 'cept 'in' the bar if it has one. I carry cross draw so that the pistol does not interfere with the seatbelt. OC is OK while driving. I OC daily... everywhere not otherwise prohibited.
    I think you better brush up on the law in AZ.

    Didn't run into any trouble while in Tucson, however, I did find out from more reading that current case law in AZ reads that if a person can't see your gun from outside the car, then it is considered concealed.

    Thanks to State v. Adams and State v. Moerman (http://www.azcdl.org/html/educational.html )conditions like "obvious to a casual observer" also come into play when reading ARS 13-3102.F. In a vehicle that has come to mean that it is obvious to someone outside the vechicle that there is a gun inside the vechicle.

    ARS 13-3102.F (second sentence) deals with carrying in a car but the Adams decision pretty much negated carrying in a car without a permit. But last session AzCDL succeeded in having the words "map pocket" added into the law as a place to carry a holstered gun. The new wording is subsequent to the Adams decision but map pocket is not defined. It appearsit is being interpretedthat any compartment in a car is a "map pocket" - which gets us back to carrying a holstered gun in the glove compartment, until another activist anti-gun judge determines otherwise.

    HB 2389 would have eliminated these, but the Governor vetoed it on 7/7/08.
    Adams refers to carrying a weapon between the passenger seat and door. As I stated, "As far as the car, I'm not sure about when it's on your person, but you can put the gun in the glove box or in the center console, and it's not considered to be concealed." Between the passenger seat and the door is NOT on the list I gave.

    In the Moerman case, the defendants were carrying their weapons in fanny packs, not OC holsters. Just about everyone I know considers carrying in a fanny pack to be concealed, whether you're in a car or just walking down the street. In fact, on many web sites that talk about the ways to carry concealed, fanny packs is one of the methods mentioned (though usually not recommended). Rebel said OC, which I (and any reasonable person, I suspect) would interpret as in a holster in plain view. He even mentioned a cross draw holster. That's not concealed, and could nto be considered concealed, not by Arizona law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Well... y'all come to the AZ forum and ask Arizonans... then tell 'em they're WRONG?┬* You might wonder why we don't like Californians here┬*much.┬*'What'd ya expect... we duct tape 'em to the windows? Wear shoulder holsters? I wear a┬*2.5" GUN BELT... not any sort of IWB/OWB stuff.┬*'Get stopped... inform the LEO you're armed/heeled. Keep both hands on the wheel. He'll ask 'where'.┬* You tell him 'where'.┬* That's all it takes.

    You already know it all... yet understand nothing. Bye!
    Take it easy, Rebel. You're not really from AZ either, so give him a break.

    Decoligny is rightfully concerned about the way the judges have rewritten the statutes to mean the exact opposite of what the legislature intended. According to the courts, unless it's blatantly obvious that you're carrying a gun, then it's concealed.

    So, if I'm walking through Target and you can't see the XD holstered on my right side, then it's concealed. If I'm carrying in my car, and if it's not blatantly obvious that I have a gun on my belt when you approach my window, then it's concealed.

    Until we get the laws changed, those of us without CCW permits have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of anti-gun LEOs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    like_the_roman wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Well... y'all come to the AZ forum and ask Arizonans... then tell 'em they're WRONG?┬* You might wonder why we don't like Californians here┬*much.┬*'What'd ya expect... we duct tape 'em to the windows? Wear shoulder holsters? I wear a┬*2.5" GUN BELT... not any sort of IWB/OWB stuff.┬*'Get stopped... inform the LEO you're armed/heeled. Keep both hands on the wheel. He'll ask 'where'.┬* You tell him 'where'.┬* That's all it takes.

    You already know it all... yet understand nothing. Bye!
    Take it easy, Rebel. You're not really from AZ either, so give him a break.

    Decoligny is rightfully concerned about the way the judges have rewritten the statutes to mean the exact opposite of what the legislature intended. According to the courts, unless it's blatantly obvious that you're carrying a gun, then it's concealed.

    So, if I'm walking through Target and you can't see the XD holstered on my right side, then it's concealed. If I'm carrying in my car, and if it's not blatantly obvious that I have a gun on my belt when you approach my window, then it's concealed.

    Until we get the laws changed, those of us without CCW permits have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of anti-gun LEOs.
    EXACTLY! Adams muddied the waters and Gov. Nappy has vetoed efforts to clarify it. Why? Because politicians and antis love obscure law- it helps their cause. What was Nappy's reasoning for not signing the clarifications into law? She said, if they want to conceal-let them get a permit.

    There you have it- from a life-long, NATIVE Arizonan

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    like_the_roman wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Well... y'all come to the AZ forum and ask Arizonans... then tell 'em they're WRONG? You might wonder why we don't like Californians heremuch.'What'd ya expect... we duct tape 'em to the windows? Wear shoulder holsters? I wear a2.5" GUN BELT... not any sort of IWB/OWB stuff.'Get stopped... inform the LEO you're armed/heeled. Keep both hands on the wheel. He'll ask 'where'. You tell him 'where'. That's all it takes.

    You already know it all... yet understand nothing. Bye!
    Take it easy, Rebel. You're not really from AZ either, so give him a break.

    Decoligny is rightfully concerned about the way the judges have rewritten the statutes to mean the exact opposite of what the legislature intended. According to the courts, unless it's blatantly obvious that you're carrying a gun, then it's concealed.

    So, if I'm walking through Target and you can't see the XD holstered on my right side, then it's concealed. If I'm carrying in my car, and if it's not blatantly obvious that I have a gun on my belt when you approach my window, then it's concealed.

    Until we get the laws changed, those of us without CCW permits have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of anti-gun LEOs.
    Relative azimuth of the weapons position to the direction of the observer does not constitute concealment.

    I've been carryn' a sidearm of some type or other when in AZ since 1966... so that 'not from AZ' don't float.I have never encountered an anti-gun or 'uninformed'LEO in AZ... either gettin' in or out of a vehicle or at theBP check points, the Phoenix or Tucson airportsor at any other time any of 'em have observed me, even before I obtained the AZ CWP. 'Main reason I moved here.... registered to vote and drive here... own property here... and should have done that MUCH earlier. I AM an Arizonan! There's 'city people' in Tucson and Marana (born here) who are STILL ignorant of RTK&BA in Arizona or anywhere else for that matter. As an aside... NOBODY has ever asked where I'm from.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Just to get back to the main point. I initially asked what the law was.

    I didn't ask how it is enforce, or how likely I was to get into trouble if I violated it and the cops don't care.

    If I had asked "What's the speed limit in AZ on the I-10" and got back "It's OK to drive 80 mph" the answer isn't correct, regardless of whether or not there hasn't been a ticket written in the past 30 years for under 90 mph. It would only be an opinion based on experience, not the law.

    So, If I asked "What's the speed limit in AZ on the I-10", thecorrect answer would have been "75mph unless there is construction".

    If you wanted to expand upon thatyou could have added "But the cops will leave you alone as long as you keep it under 85".

    In the California forum I usually have to deal with people spreading FUD. Usually stating that the law is more stick thanitactually is, as written.

    This is the first time I have ever dealt with someone stating that the law is more lax than it actually is, as written.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    Stay in California. We don't want you here, nor your money.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    +1 I wasn't gonna say that... but I've been thinkin' it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    impulse418 wrote:
    Stay in California. We don't want you here, nor your money.
    Now why would you go and say that? We are all RKBA people on here. Part of the beauty of this forum is to know the law. If I were to go to another state on vacation or whatever, I would want to know the LAW, not necessarily how locals perceive it, but what is on the books- and that includes CASE LAW. It makes perfect sense.

    Remember, not all Californians are happy with their situation as it relates to 2nd Amendment rights. Just as not all Arizonans agree with us on these points (they're dead wrong, but I digress).

    This is where case law is important. We know that most LEOs in this state are reasonable, know the law and probably not hassle him, but that's not 100% guaranteed. If it were guaranteed then Adams vs Arizona would not have gone to trial and the legislation from the bench that muddied the law would never have come down. The fact is, if we fail to recognize that there are those in our own state that would seek to undermine our God-given rights, then we are already in danger of losing them.

    So rather than sit around having a ******* contest about how the law SHOULD be interpreted or not, let's figure out how we can go about getting this Nappy Governor out of office so that we can make sure that there is no "wiggle room" for an over-zealous prosecutors in Tucson.

    Oh and Rebel, you and I live in the shadow of one of the most liberal cities in America. Tucson is not the gun-owner's friend- while most of the cops are cool, most of the other officials would not hesitate to make an example out of you or me to justify their liberal anti-gun agenda.

    Decoligny you are more than welcome in AZ, you and your money and your family and your firearms. Really!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I would rather concentrate on getting the all of the Tucson city gummint 'n much of Pima County gummintoutt'a office... and the U of A outt'a local politics. That's possible!

    'Didn't used to be like this back when... Too much foreign influence. Much of that from California. (I've lived there... I experienced it daily during the Vietnam war days.... 'n periodically thereafter.) 'Got nuthin' good to say 'bout California or Californians in general.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    I would rather concentrate on getting the all of the Tucson city gummint 'n much of Pima County gummintoutt'a office... and the U of A outt'a local politics. That's possible!

    'Didn't used to be like this back when... Too much foreign influence. Much of that from California. (I've lived there... I experienced it daily during the Vietnam war days.... 'n periodically thereafter.) 'Got nuthin' good to say 'bout California or Californians in general.
    Well, Sonora Rebel, sorry to hear you don't have "nuthin good to say 'bout Californians in general". How about specifically. You sit there in Arizona where you already enjoy the blessed freedom and liberty to carry a loaded firearm pretty much wherever you want to.

    There are those of us "Californians" who consider ourselves on the front lines of the RKBA battle. We risk our freedom every time we carry. We may not end up convicted, but we could easily put out ten to twenty grand defending ourselves against illegal charges. And yes I know people who have laid out that kind of money for legal defense of RKBA. We are carrying our firearms wherever we legally can, and we are working hard to change to laws that infringe upon our RKBA.

    Our laws are so screwed up that we have to know them frontward, backwards, and inside out, in order to keep from going to jail for carrying our firearms.

    So, excuse the hell out of me for not wanting to chance getting locked up in another state for possibly violating the law, and not wanting to risk wasting ten to twenty grand defending myself where it doesn't benifit my RKBA.

    The reason I had to go to Arizona was to represent my Squadron at a reuinion of WWII veterans who used to be members of my Squadron. These men put their lives on the line to protect our freedom. 124 of them from my Squadron died defending our freedom. I put 20 years of active duty Air Force time under my belt, and have 6 years time working as a civilian for the Air Force (15 years in the same Squadron).

    I feel as adamant about defending my 2nd amendment rights as I do about defending my country, there is no difference, without our rights we don't have a country.

    As much as I enjoyed by trip toArizona, if the people had turned out to have an attitudeanything like that displayed by Sonora Rebel,it would be a very long time before I came back.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I really don't understand why there is so much concern over carry law here in Arizona. The statutes clearly refer to carrying "knowingly concealed." If you are concerned about getting arrested at Target because someone didn't see your gun on your hip at first, maybe you shouldn't be carrying in the first place. The law says that the holster has to be partially visible--not even the gun. I have dealt with many LEOs and never had a problem. I'm also not aware of any "case law" that says a holstered gun has to be visible from outside the car. Maybe someone should actually provide proof.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    state v adams and malicious interpretations by several police agencies warrant concern. The courts have decided that the law does not say what it says.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    I really don't understand why there is so much concern over carry law here in Arizona. The statutes clearly refer to carrying "knowingly concealed." If you are concerned about getting arrested at Target because someone didn't see your gun on your hip at first, maybe you shouldn't be carrying in the first place. The law says that the holster has to be partially visible--not even the gun. I have dealt with many LEOs and never had a problem. I'm also not aware of any "case law" that says a holstered gun has to be visible from outside the car. Maybe someone should actually provide proof.

    ┬*
    PROOF:

    http://www.azcdl.org/AZAppellateCourt_StateVAdams.pdf

    Specifically:
    Affirmed.
    1. Weapons 10
    Weapon found between passenger seat and door of vehicle in which defendant was passenger was "concealed,"
    as required to support conviction for misconduct involving weapons, even if weapon was visible from certain angle
    outside vehicle; weapon was hidden from "ordinary observation" or "ordinary sight" of persons outside vehicle.

    A.R.S. ┬ž 13-3102, subd. A, par. 2.


    Therefore, according to the Adams decision, if you can't see it my ordinary sight it's concealed and would require a CCW permit to be legal. And if you have car with bucket seats like I do, then you certainly can't see my sidearm from the outside of my vehicle when I'm OC.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Just to get back to the main point. I initially asked what the law was.

    I didn't ask how it is enforce, or how likely I was to get into trouble if I violated it and the cops don't care.
    Great. The law is that a pistol worn in a belt holster is not considered concealed. The law makes no mention of whether you are sitting, standing, inside, outside, or in a car.

    Therefore, I am in compliance with the law when I am wearing my pistol in my belt holster in my car. Your statement that I have admitted on a public forum to breaking the law is as incorrect as your apparent understanding of the law.

    Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a belt holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage.
    Perhaps you can show me where vehicles are mentioned in the statute?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    Perhaps you can show me where vehicles are mentioned in the statute?
    The statute has been overridden by case 'law.'

    In State v. Adams, a weapon hidden from "ordinary observation" or "ordinary sight" is considered concealed. The manner in which a weapon is carried must put others on notice of its presence. The judge in this case even goes so far to say that concealed weapons need not be completely hidden or invisible to be considered concealed.

    So, if you're carrying in a belt holster on your right side in your vehicle, and an officer approaches you from the left window on the driver's side, if he can't immediately tell you are armed, then you have a concealed weapon.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    If I read that right, the weapon was NOT in a holster worn openly on the defendant's hip but simply between him and the door. I don't see how such decision would have anything to do with a driver or passenger wearing a gun openly on his/her hip while in the car. I think people are reading too much into this just like the bogus 1,000 foot school law.



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    If I read that right, the weapon was NOT in a holster worn openly on the defendant's hip but simply between him and the door. I don't see how such decision would have anything to do with a driver or passenger wearing a gun openly on his/her hip while in the car. I think people are reading too much into this just like the bogus 1,000 foot school law.
    I agree with protector on this. In one case, the offenders were carrying in a fanny pack. In the other case, the weapon was jammed down between the seat and the door. Neither could reasonably be construed as being in a wholly or partially visible belt holster.

    The most we've ever heard on these cases is that a cop "could" consider your weapon concealed if you're in a car. I'd like to see a single case of this actually happening. Until then, it's just as believable as the statement that a bad guy "could" come up and take a gun from an open carrier.

    I completely support AZCDL, and I agree that this case law should be clarified in legislature. I just don't agree that every one of us should suddenly start acting as if getting in the car automatically equals concealed carry. It doesn't.

Posting Permissions

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