• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Armed and civilized: Protesters rally against Obama policies

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrot
Did one of the nurses drop you on your head there too?

So, if a rifle is in a scabbard slung across someones back, you would be fine with that, but if it is carried with just a sling you have a problem?
I'll ignore the first comment you made, nutsack.

A rifle in a case or scabbard does follow the letter of the law here in Arizona.

However, carrying long guns to political events, or anywhere really -- isn't going to win friends among non-gun owners.

Showing up with that much firepower at a political event makes gun owners look like they are looking for a fight, because handguns are primarily defensive weapons, rifles are offensive weapons. Many people are used to seeing long gun racks in vehicles, but a long gun out in the open usually means that a firefight is about to occur. It hasn't yet, but the idea is still there.

It's bad press. Gun owners are trying to dispel the sterotype as our group as a bunch 'militia' types but bringing out that kind of hardware only proves it. And scaring people unnecessarily will only lead to legislation to limit our rights even more than they already are.

Again: if we don't regulate our own behavior, someone else will do it for us.
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:
NO, I'M NOT A CALIFORNICATOR, I was put there via the USAF, really didn't have much of a choice after I turned down the first set of orders to Las Vegas, and boy did that choice bite me in the A$$. I'm originally from Texas, and damn proud of that fact even though I didn't have a choice about that either.

You say your short life, so I'm assuming you're just barely old enough to vote yet you're telling us how we should carry our guns, and then attempt to have legislators restrict our rights even more. You're either Bi Polar or just plain nutz. I've travelled the world and you've never the left the damn county. Seriously WTF
How old I am, what I do, or where I've been is not relevant. I'm telling you what the political reality of the situation is in Arizona, from someone who is seeing the demographic changes first-hand. Either we regulate ourselves, or other people will decide to do it for us. If you feel that you must be special and unique and have the center of attention by carrying the biggest gun you can to scare people, fine. Just don't blame anyone else when the leftists are voted in and we all suffer for your mistakes.
 

kenpoprofessor

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
163
Location
Phoenix AZ, ,
imported post

like_the_roman wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote:
NO, I'M NOT A CALIFORNICATOR, I was put there via the USAF, really didn't have much of a choice after I turned down the first set of orders to Las Vegas, and boy did that choice bite me in the A$$. I'm originally from Texas, and damn proud of that fact even though I didn't have a choice about that either.

You say your short life, so I'm assuming you're just barely old enough to vote yet you're telling us how we should carry our guns, and then attempt to have legislators restrict our rights even more. You're either Bi Polar or just plain nutz. I've travelled the world and you've never the left the damn county. Seriously WTF?

Clyde
How old I am or where I've been is not relevant. I'm telling you what the political reality of the situation is in Arizona, from someone who is seeing the demographic changes first-hand. Either we regulate ourselves, or other people will decide to do it for us. If you feel that you must be special and unique and have the center of attention by carrying the biggest gun you can to scare people, go for it. Just don't blame anyone when the Ds are voted in and we all suffer for it.

You're old enough to vote and register for the draft, but that certainly doesn't give you the life experience you're trying to portray. You're a young little whippersnapper trying to excel in the adult world and you're failing. You're barely out of diapers trying to tell people how they should exercise their rights when you've only had them for 2 friggin' years.

Clyde
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:
You're old enough to vote and register for the draft, but that certainly doesn't give you the life experience you're trying to portray. You're a young little whippersnapper trying to excel in the adult world and you're failing. You're barely out of diapers trying to tell people how they should exercise their rights when you've only had them for 2 friggin' years.

Clyde
My life experience is not relevant. The data is (it's a shame you belittle being educated, because that's what allows people to research facts and use rational thought to win arguments instead of calling names). Anyway:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56876

The places that are the most reliably Democratic are losing residents to the sand states and deep south, which were reliably Republican. That means that the demographics are going to slowly shift in their favor, and those shifts have political consequences. Arizona will flip within your (and especially my) lifetime: those people who are economic refugees aren't going to change their political opinions just because they moved.

Either regulate your own behavior, or they will decide to do it for you. You have only yourself to blame if it happens.
 

kenpoprofessor

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
163
Location
Phoenix AZ, ,
imported post

like_the_roman wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote:
You're old enough to vote and register for the draft, but that certainly doesn't give you the life experience you're trying to portray. You're a young little whippersnapper trying to excel in the adult world and you're failing. You're barely out of diapers trying to tell people how they should exercise their rights when you've only had them for 2 friggin' years.

Clyde
My life experience is not relevant. The data is (it's a shame you belittle being educated, because that's what allows people to research facts and use rational thought to win arguments instead of calling names). Anyway:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56876

The places that are the most reliably Democratic are losing residents to the sand states and deep south, which were reliably Republican. That means that the demographics are going to slowly shift in their favor, and those shifts have political consequences. Arizona will flip within your (and especially my) lifetime: those people who are economic refugees aren't going to change their political opinions just because they moved.

Either regulate your own behavior, or they will decide to do it for you. You have only yourself to blame if it happens.

You see, you're happy with "regulation" because you have never lived at a time when it wasn't. You're not even capable of seeing things the same way when you haven't lived through the times. If you've never been to the beach, how are you going to tell me about it other than what you've heard, read, or seen? You can't describe the smell, sounds, tastes, or whether the water is cold or warm.

I never once belittled "education", and you're the only one who brought it up. Guess you should take some reading comprehension classes while you're going to school, it might help you interpret the actual meaning of someone's writing beause clearly, you're not "getting it".

Clyde
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

like_the_roman wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote:
You're old enough to vote and register for the draft, but that certainly doesn't give you the life experience you're trying to portray. You're a young little whippersnapper trying to excel in the adult world and you're failing. You're barely out of diapers trying to tell people how they should exercise their rights when you've only had them for 2 friggin' years.

Clyde
My life experience is not relevant. The data is (it's a shame you belittle being educated, because that's what allows people to research facts and use rational thought to win arguments instead of calling names). Anyway:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56876

The places that are the most reliably Democratic are losing residents to the sand states and deep south, which were reliably Republican. That means that the demographics are going to slowly shift in their favor, and those shifts have political consequences. Arizona will flip within your (and especially my) lifetime: those people who are economic refugees aren't going to change their political opinions just because they moved.

Either regulate your own behavior, or they will decide to do it for you. You have only yourself to blame if it happens.
You're missing one important point here. Not all democrats are liberals. There are still allot of conservative dems that don't like the communist/socialistagenda that the Democrat party has adopted. Many of them are moving out of prodominently Democratic areas to get away from liberalism.
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:
You see, you're happy with "regulation" because you have never lived at a time when it wasn't. You're not even capable of seeing things the same way when you haven't lived through the times. If you've never been to the beach, how are you going to tell me about it other than what you've heard, read, or seen? You can't describe the smell, sounds, tastes, or whether the water is cold or warm.

I never once belittled "education", and you're the only one who brought it up. Guess you should take some reading comprehension classes while you're going to school, it might help you interpret the actual meaning of someone's writing beause clearly, you're not "getting it".

Clyde
So I didn't really read that little quip about being a brainwashed?

("And it also says you're a student, that doesn't surprise me either, which iswhy I said you're brainwashed already.")

Because, of course, if one is a student at a university, then one is really just brainwashed, right? You know and I know what you meant by that comment -- that higher education = brainwashing.

I said that I've never spent more than two weeks outside the county in my life. That "two weeks" was a short jaunt to the beaches near Escondido/Oceanside during spring break (yeah, my official school break was shorter than two weeks but I milked it a little.)

Go back and read my posts here:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=12668&forum_id=4&jump_to=208172#p208172

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=12557&forum_id=4&jump_to=202613#p202613

Does that read like someone who is a fan of 'regulation' to you? I was calling for privately held military weapons. Including nukes! What happened?

In short, the more I see of my fellow gun owners in action, the more I am beginning to see the point of the gun controllers. Judging by the the behavior at the Tea Parties or of the camo-wearing people in parks, it makes the case that some people should not be allowed to carry pellet guns in public, much less a semi-automatic rifle.

That kind of behavior is adolescent at best (to which you say: I almost am one. Har har.) It's like a teenager with a nose-ring or a face tattoo. It serves no purpose but to shock or aggrivate other people. The difference is that carrying a long gun in public could actually lead to other legislation being passed that limits everything else gun-related.

You can insult my age or background all you want to try and discredit me. All it proves is that you have nothing with which to back up your belief that carrying long guns carries no risk of backlash. As I said in another post: go ahead. Carry away. Just don't be surprised when other bad things happen.
 

kenpoprofessor

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
163
Location
Phoenix AZ, ,
imported post

like_the_roman wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote:
You see, you're happy with "regulation" because you have never lived at a time when it wasn't. You're not even capable of seeing things the same way when you haven't lived through the times. If you've never been to the beach, how are you going to tell me about it other than what you've heard, read, or seen? You can't describe the smell, sounds, tastes, or whether the water is cold or warm.

I never once belittled "education", and you're the only one who brought it up. Guess you should take some reading comprehension classes while you're going to school, it might help you interpret the actual meaning of someone's writing beause clearly, you're not "getting it".

Clyde
So I didn't really read that little quip about being a brainwashed?

("And it also says you're a student, that doesn't surprise me either, which iswhy I said you're brainwashed already.")

Because, of course, if one is a student at a university, then one is really just brainwashed, right? You know and I know what you meant by that comment -- that higher education = brainwashing.

I said that I've never spent more than two weeks outside the county in my life. That "two weeks" was a short jaunt to the beaches near Escondido/Oceanside during spring break (yeah, my official school break was shorter than two weeks but I milked it a little.)

Go back and read my posts here:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=12668&forum_id=4&jump_to=208172#p208172

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=12557&forum_id=4&jump_to=202613#p202613

Does that read like someone who is a fan of 'regulation' to you? I was calling for privately held military weapons. Including nukes! What happened?

In short, the more I see of my fellow gun owners in action, the more I am beginning to see the point of the gun controllers. Judging by the the behavior at the Tea Parties or of the camo-wearing people in parks, it makes the case that some people should not be allowed to carry pellet guns in public, much less a semi-automatic rifle.

That kind of behavior is adolescent at best (to which you say: I almost am one. Har har.) It's like a teenager with a nose-ring or a face tattoo. It serves no purpose but to shock or aggrivate other people. The difference is that carrying a long gun in public could actually lead to other legislation being passed that limits everything else gun-related.

You can insult my age or background all you want to try and discredit me. All it proves is that you have nothing with which to back up your belief that carrying long guns carries no risk of backlash. As I said in another post: go ahead. Carry away. Just don't be surprised when other bad things happen.

And clearly, you missed the euphemistic metaphor. Guess college really is working well for you. Carry on.

Clyde
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
You're missing one important point here. Not all democrats are liberals. There are still allot of conservative dems that don't like the communist/socialistagenda that the Democrat party has adopted. Many of them are moving out of prodominently Democratic areas to get away from liberalism.
There are many individual Democrats who are pro-2A. The party and its leadership are usually not, because the big funders are not. Some are also pro-2A but only for 'sporting' purposes (like my family).

The Democrats moving away may not even realize that it is their liberal policies that are dragging their home states down. They may get here and decide that "this place is nice, but what it really needs is to be a copy of my home state, but better." So they vote in who they want, wreck the state, and move in another 10 years after things get bad.
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote
And clearly, you missed the euphemistic metaphor. Guess college really is working well for you. Carry on.

Clyde
No, I got it. (It's just "metaphor" by the way, euphemisms are another linguistic trope.) Elsewhere in the thread you saying that you had traveled the world and therefore had valuable experience. I was just sharing mine since it's just as (ir)relevant.
 

kenpoprofessor

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
163
Location
Phoenix AZ, ,
imported post

like_the_roman wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote
And clearly, you missed the euphemistic metaphor. Guess college really is working well for you. Carry on.

Clyde
No, I got it. (It's just "metaphor" by the way, euphemisms are another linguistic trope.) Elsewhere in the thread you saying that you had traveled the world and therefore had valuable experience. I was just sharing mine since it's just as (ir)relevant.


[*]Euphemism: "making something sound better"
[*]Dysphemism: "making something sound worse"
[*]
[*]
[*]Conventional Euphemism





Sources of euphemistic expressions:

Phonological (sound):

  • Remodellings: part of the word is replaced ("shoot", "darn", "heck" etc.)
  • Clippings and abbreviations: part of the word is removed ("jeeze", "bra",
    "SOB", "pee").
Semantic (meaning):

  • Metaphor:"The cavalry's come" (Redcoats, menstruation), "pass on".
  • Metonymy: an associated concept stands in for the one being referred to. "Ladies room", "feminine moisture", "go to bed with", "do it".
  • Circumlocution: a roundabout way of talking (often included with metaphor/metonymy). "Terminological inaccuracy" for "lie", "little girls' room" for "toilet".
  • Hyperbole: overstatement, exaggeration. "Home" for "house", "flight to glory" for "death".
  • Understatement: "Sleep" for "die", "anatomically correct" (dolls), "this guy I'm seeing".
Clyde
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

The point is going to fall on deaf ears roman. Unfortunately this will become too overbearing and legislation will be enacted to inhibit the rights of gun owners.

Because they cannot think left they don't understand it, and is exactly why the plan will blow up in their face. Only in the aftermath will they go "maybe we shouldnt've done that."
 

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Arizona, U.S.
imported post

Requiring firearms to be holstered or cased is a common misconception about Arizona law. I'm guessing it results from poor reading skills by not reading carefully enough or reading too quickly. In the "misconduct involving weapons" section of Arizona law, you will find no mention of the term "open carry." The first two sections (I believe it is A1 and A2 but I've quoted it so many times I'm tired of repeatedly looking it up for those who don't want to read) refers to concealed carry. A1 refers to concealed carry on one's person "without a permit" and A2 refers to concealed carry in a vehicle "without a permit." The only mention of a permit you will find anywhere in the Weapons and Explosives section has to do with concealed carry.

Futher down in the section on "misconduct involving weapons" are references to A1 and A2. One of those references is that A1 doesn't apply to a weapon that is carried in a case, scabbard, belt holster, etc. where the holster or other carrying device is "wholly or partially visible." This is still talking about concealed carry. That is because a weapon that is in a holster or carrying case will naturally be somewhat concealed (i.e. part of the gun is hidden in the holster). It protects people from being busted with concealed carry when they are open carrying because some holsters will conceal most of a firearm yet as long as the holster is plainly visible to a casual observer, this statute protects the carrier from a concealed carry violation. Nothing here states that weapons are required to be carried in any type of a case, holster, etc. There is a section about brandishing which generally defines it as displaying a weapon in a reckless, dangerous, or threatening manner. Therefore, it may not be wise to carry a handgun in your hand or a rifle or shotgun in your hands while walking down the street. However, you still will not find anything in A.R.S. requiring such weapons to be slung or cased and no mention of open carry since again A1 and A2 are strictly referring to concealed carry without a permit violations, NOT open carry. People who own tons of guns may not have slings or cases for all of them and may just carry them out to their cars when going on a hunting trip and may simply carry them in their hands to the hunting grounds. Show me a law where this is illegal because it isn't.

Similar myths refer to stating that the gun must be visible on so many sides, that there must be so many actions required to make the gun "ready," etc. You just won't find that in the law. Besides, people with a CCW can pretty much carry any way they want because again A1 and A2 and the subsections referencing them that are consistently misinterpreted refer to concealed carry without a permit. Enough said. I'm really getting tired of repeating myself here for people who can't read a simple set of laws carefully and connect the dots.
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

protector84 wrote:
Requiring firearms to be holstered or cased is a common misconception about Arizona law. I'm guessing it results from poor reading skills by not reading carefully enough or reading too quickly. In the "misconduct involving weapons" section of Arizona law, you will find no mention of the term "open carry." The first two sections (I believe it is A1 and A2 but I've quoted it so many times I'm tired of repeatedly looking it up for those who don't want to read) refers to concealed carry. A1 refers to concealed carry on one's person "without a permit" and A2 refers to concealed carry in a vehicle "without a permit." The only mention of a permit you will find anywhere in the Weapons and Explosives section has to do with concealed carry.

Futher down in the section on "misconduct involving weapons" are references to A1 and A2. One of those references is that A1 doesn't apply to a weapon that is carried in a case, scabbard, belt holster, etc. where the holster or other carrying device is "wholly or partially visible." This is still talking about concealed carry. That is because a weapon that is in a holster or carrying case will naturally be somewhat concealed (i.e. part of the gun is hidden in the holster). It protects people from being busted with concealed carry when they are open carrying because some holsters will conceal most of a firearm yet as long as the holster is plainly visible to a casual observer, this statute protects the carrier from a concealed carry violation. Nothing here states that weapons are required to be carried in any type of a case, holster, etc. There is a section about brandishing which generally defines it as displaying a weapon in a reckless, dangerous, or threatening manner. Therefore, it may not be wise to carry a handgun in your hand or a rifle or shotgun in your hands while walking down the street. However, you still will not find anything in A.R.S. requiring such weapons to be slung or cased and no mention of open carry since again A1 and A2 are strictly referring to concealed carry without a permit violations, NOT open carry. People who own tons of guns may not have slings or cases for all of them and may just carry them out to their cars when going on a hunting trip and may simply carry them in their hands to the hunting grounds. Show me a law where this is illegal because it isn't.

Similar myths refer to stating that the gun must be visible on so many sides, that there must be so many actions required to make the gun "ready," etc. You just won't find that in the law. Besides, people with a CCW can pretty much carry any way they want because again A1 and A2 and the subsections referencing them that are consistently misinterpreted refer to concealed carry without a permit. Enough said. I'm really getting tired of repeating myself here for people who can't read a simple set of laws carefully and connect the dots.

 

If you've read the statute you understand there is an exception for carrying your gun to a shooting exhibition, hunting, or shooting ranges.

It's not legalese, it's quite understandable. The misconduct involving weapons statute is pretty clear.

13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

1. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 except a pocket knife concealed on his person; or

2. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 concealed within immediate control of any person in or on a means of transportation; 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

4. Possessing a deadly weapon or prohibited weapon if such person is a prohibited possessor; or

5. Selling or transferring a deadly weapon to a prohibited possessor; or

6. Defacing a deadly weapon; or

7. Possessing a defaced deadly weapon knowing the deadly weapon was defaced; or

8. Using or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense included in chapter 34 of this title; or

9. Discharging a firearm at an occupied structure in order to assist, promote or further the interests of a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise; or

10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01; or

11. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a deadly weapon; or

12. Possessing a deadly weapon on school grounds; or

13. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying a deadly weapon on his person or within the immediate control of any person; or

14. Supplying, selling or giving possession or control of a firearm to another person if the person knows or has reason to know that the other person would use the firearm in the commission of any felony; or

15. Using, possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon in furtherance of any act of terrorism as defined in section 13-2301 or possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon knowing or having reason to know that it will be used to facilitate any act of terrorism as defined in section 13-2301.

B. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a person in his dwelling, on his business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person.

C. Subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this section shall not apply to:

1. A peace officer or any person summoned by any peace officer to assist and while actually assisting in the performance of official duties; or

2. A member of the military forces of the United States or of any state of the United States in the performance of official duties; or

3. A warden, deputy warden, community correctional officer, detention officer, special investigator or correctional officer of the state department of corrections or the department of juvenile corrections; or

4. A person specifically licensed, authorized or permitted pursuant to a statute of this state or of the United States.

D. Subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section shall not apply to:

1. A member of a sheriff's volunteer posse or reserve organization who has received and passed firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board and who is authorized by the sheriff to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to section 11-441.

2. A person who has honorably served as a law enforcement officer in the United States for at least ten consecutive years and who possesses a photographic identification or a letter from a law enforcement agency that states the person has served for at least ten consecutive years as a law enforcement officer in the United States. On request, the law enforcement agency that most recently employed the person or, if the person was employed outside of this state, the sheriff of the county in which the person resides shall issue a photographic identification or a letter that verifies the person meets the requirement of this paragraph.

E. Subsection A, paragraphs 3 and 7 of this section shall not apply to:

1. The possessing, transporting, selling or transferring of weapons by a museum as a part of its collection or an educational institution for educational purposes or by an authorized employee of such museum or institution, if:

(a) Such museum or institution is operated by the United States or this state or a political subdivision of this state, or by an organization described in 26 United States Code section 170(c) as a recipient of a charitable contribution; and

(b) Reasonable precautions are taken with respect to theft or misuse of such material.

2. The regular and lawful transporting as merchandise; or

3. Acquisition by a person by operation of law such as by gift, devise or descent or in a fiduciary capacity as a recipient of the property or former property of an insolvent, incapacitated or deceased person.

F. Subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section shall not apply to the merchandise of an authorized manufacturer of or dealer in prohibited weapons, when such material is intended to be manufactured, possessed, transported, sold or transferred solely for or to a dealer, a regularly constituted or appointed state, county or municipal police department or police officer, a detention facility, the military service of this or another state or the United States, a museum or educational institution or a person specifically licensed or permitted pursuant to federal or state law.

G. 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, carried in a scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible or carried in luggage. Subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section shall not apply to a weapon or weapons carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation.

H. Subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section shall not apply to shooting ranges or shooting events, hunting areas or similar locations or activities.

I. Subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section shall not apply to a weapon described in section 13-3101, subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), item (v), if such weapon is possessed for the purposes of preparing for, conducting or participating in lawful exhibitions, demonstrations, contests or athletic events involving the use of such weapon. Subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section shall not apply to a weapon if such weapon is possessed for the purposes of preparing for, conducting or participating in hunter or firearm safety courses.

J. Subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section shall not apply to the possession of a:

1. Firearm that is not loaded and that is carried within a means of transportation under the control of an adult provided that if the adult leaves the means of transportation the firearm shall not be visible from the outside of the means of transportation and the means of transportation shall be locked.

2. Firearm for use on the school grounds in a program approved by a school.

K. The operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the employee of the operator or sponsor or the agent of the sponsor, including a public entity or public employee, is not liable for acts or omissions pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 10 of this section unless the operator, sponsor, employee or agent intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.

L. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 15 of this section is a class 2 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 9 or 14 of this section is a class 3 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 3, 4, 8 or 13 of this section is a class 4 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor unless the violation occurs in connection with conduct that violates section 13-2308, subsection A, paragraph 5, section 13-2312, subsection C, section 13-3409 or section 13-3411, in which case the offense is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 5, 6 or 7 of this section is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 10 or 11 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.

M. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state.

2. "Public event" means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration that is either conducted by a public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place.

3. "School" means a public or nonpublic kindergarten program, common school or high school.

4. "School grounds" means in, or on the grounds of, a school.
 

protector84

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Arizona, U.S.
imported post

Yet another fool who can't read. The section you put in bold referred to section A-10 which has to do with "public establishments" and "public events." It did not apply to anything else. Section M which you quoted but weren't capable or willing to read said this:

1. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state.

2. "Public event" means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration that is either conducted by a public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place.

I'm sick of people who keep misquoting and don't read. For Christ's sake, this refers to things like public libraries, court houses, government buildings, or events such as a baseball game, a public parade in a park that requires admission, the state fair, etc. It does not refer to a group of people protesting on a city sidewalk nor does it refer to someone going in a grocery store which is privately owned nor does it refer to someone walking down a city street. People who can't read and keep misquoting should ultimately be considered trolls. This is really getting ridiculous. I went to school and I know how to read a set of laws in entirety, quote them properly, and use my critical thinking skills to figure out which section applies to another section and which one doesn't. C'mon.
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

protector84 wrote:
Yet another fool who can't read. The section you put in bold referred to section A-10 which has to do with "public establishments" and "public events." It did not apply to anything else. Section M which you quoted but weren't capable or willing to read said this:

1. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state.

2. "Public event" means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration that is either conducted by a public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place.

I'm sick of people who keep misquoting and don't read. For Christ's sake, this refers to things like public libraries, court houses, government buildings, or events such as a baseball game, a public parade in a park that requires admission, the state fair, etc. It does not refer to a group of people protesting on a city sidewalk nor does it refer to someone going in a grocery store which is privately owned nor does it refer to someone walking down a city street. People who can't read and keep misquoting should ultimately be considered trolls. This is really getting ridiculous. I went to school and I know how to read a set of laws in entirety, quote them properly, and use my critical thinking skills to figure out which section applies to another section and which one doesn't. C'mon.

 

Apparently your critical thinking skills are broken then?

The asphalt you're standing on to protest is owned by the state. If you do not believe me, please go outside to the sidewalk with a jackhammer and start jacking it up. Something tells me the police would not buy your argument.
 

GWbiker

Guest
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
958
Location
USA
imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:
You're projecting a stereotype of the people you "think" will attend with rifles.     You've already made up your mind, and I wonder if this isn't the same argument they're having on Calguns to tell people to quit UOC in CA.   Same argument, different place.     

Tuscon has been infected with the CA, OR, MA, IL, MD, DC  liberal bug, and maybe, just maybe, seeing people running around with rifles will scare them enough to not come here.   Wow, that's a thought.

Clyde

Well, the CA, OR, MA, Il, MD, DC liberal bugs don't bother me or perhaps don't even notice the large black hand gun I OC in Tucson.

I might insert the PSA here -- there is a OC dinner scheduled for mid January in the PHX area. Would like to see and hear some "STUDENTS" face off with Clyde on side arm and long gun OC issues.

Why hide behind the keyboard?

BTW, local TV announced the 2009 Tucson Homicide rate fell to it's lowest level since 2001. Tucson could be at risk of losing it's "Wild West" stigma.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
imported post

like_the_roman wrote:
The Panthers were (and still are) a bunch of crooks and communists dressed up as a political rights organization. Anyone who thinks we should emulate them needs to think twice.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7375

They weren't smart very smart either: when the legislature was debating the Mulford Act, they showed up with arms and threatened the members of government, thus proving Mulford correct and guaranteeing the act's passage.

Now, open carry is great. Political rallies are great. However, the two shouldn't be mixed. You expressive individualist types are ruining OC in the eyes of non-gun owners by associating it with Tea Partiers and guys running around with BDUs and AK pattern pistols slung across their backs.

I did something for the first time in my life yesterday. I sent letters to my representatives asking for a gun control law to specifically ban open carry at political events and the open carry of guns not in belt holsters. I'm sick of you guys trying to politicize a normal activity and deliberately scare people who would otherwise be sympathetic (or neutral) to open carry.
While I support wholeheartedly your desicions to express your opinions to your elected officials, WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
 

kenpoprofessor

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
163
Location
Phoenix AZ, ,
imported post

GWbiker wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote:
You're projecting a stereotype of the people you "think" will attend with rifles. You've already made up your mind, and I wonder if this isn't the same argument they're having on Calguns to tell people to quit UOC in CA. Same argument, different place.

Tuscon has been infected with the CA, OR, MA, IL, MD, DC liberal bug, and maybe, just maybe, seeing people running around with rifles will scare them enough to not come here. Wow, that's a thought.

Clyde

Well, the CA, OR, MA, Il, MD, DC liberal bugs don't bother me or perhaps don't even notice the large black hand gun I OC in Tucson.

I might insert the PSA here -- there is a OC dinner scheduled for mid January in the PHX area. Would like to see and hear some "STUDENTS" face off with Clyde on side arm and long gun OC issues.

Why hide behind the keyboard?

BTW, local TV announced the 2009 Tucson Homicide rate fell to it's lowest level since 2001. Tucson could be at risk of losing it's "Wild West" stigma.

C'mon, you know they've got COD4 to play and texting to do. I'm sure most of them don't think texting and driving is a bad thing either.

Like I said, these guys are using very limited information because of their short tenure here on earth. They've never known the freedom we've had at one time, and there's no way they can experience it except vicariously through us.

I'd love to have a face to face, but I'd betting money not one of them would EVER show up.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
 

LuvmyXD9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
126
Location
, ,
imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:
GWbiker wrote:
kenpoprofessor wrote:
You're projecting a stereotype of the people you "think" will attend with rifles.     You've already made up your mind, and I wonder if this isn't the same argument they're having on Calguns to tell people to quit UOC in CA.   Same argument, different place.     

Tuscon has been infected with the CA, OR, MA, IL, MD, DC  liberal bug, and maybe, just maybe, seeing people running around with rifles will scare them enough to not come here.   Wow, that's a thought.

Clyde

Well, the CA, OR, MA, Il, MD, DC liberal bugs don't bother me or perhaps don't even notice the large black hand gun I OC in Tucson.

I might insert the PSA here -- there is a OC dinner scheduled for mid January in the PHX area. Would like to see and hear some "STUDENTS" face off with Clyde on side arm and long gun OC issues.

Why hide behind the keyboard?

BTW, local TV announced the 2009 Tucson Homicide rate fell to it's lowest level since 2001. Tucson could be at risk of losing it's "Wild West" stigma.

C'mon, you know they've got COD4 to play and texting to do.      I'm sure most of them don't think texting and driving is a bad thing either.

Like I said, these guys are using very limited information because of their short tenure here on earth.     They've never known the freedom we've had at one time, and there's no way they can experience it except vicariously through us.

I'd love to have a face to face, but I'd betting money not one of them would EVER show up.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I don't particularly care for shooters, much less call of duty 4. I don't condone using a cell phone while driving, much less texting while doing so, and from what I've seen on this forum, there is yet to be an OC dinner event but if you post it I have no qualms about showing up, even moreso if the location is in Tempe.
 
Top