ACTION ALERT! Constitutional Carry rides again in Senate!

imported post

On Friday, March 5th at 10 AM, the Senate Appropriations Committeewill debate and vote on SB 1108.The sponsor of SB 1108,Committee Chairman Senator Russell Pearce, has proposed a "strike everything" amendment that replacesSB 1108, in its entirety, with the intended language fromSB 1102 (Constitutional Carry).

SB 1102, which was headed for a Senate floor vote, was derailed last week after the attachment of the Cheuvront amendment during the Senate Committee of the Whole (COW),creating a Class 4 Felonyfor private sellers of firearmswho fail toverifya buyer's citizenshipwhen the saleis conducted at a gun show.

Now that we have a second bite at the apple, it’s critical we remind the Senate Appropriations Committee members to support the amended SB 1108. A letter has been prepared and is waiting for you at our Action Center.

We have more good news. Representative Frank Antenori, who sponsored the House version of Constitutional Carry (HB 2347), has been appointed to replace Senator Jonathan Paton who vacated his seat to run for the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Antenori is expected to be present when SB 1108 moves to the Senate floor for debate and vote.

Meanwhile, Senator Antenori’s House version of Constitutional Carry, HB 2347, passed out of the MAPS Committee on February 3, 2010 and is awaiting a review by the House Rules Committee before heading to a floor debate in the House COW.

In other news, we are expecting SB 1168, the Senate version of the firearms preemption bill, to be scheduled for a Senate COW debate, hopefully this week. When the calendar is posted, we will let you know via an Alert.

Stay tuned! When critical legislation moves, we will notify you via these Alerts.

If you want to get legislative news as it happens, follow AzCDL on Twitter. AzCDL “tweets” from the Capitol with committee votes and breaking news as it happens.

You can also follow AzCDL on Facebook.

AzCDL’s Political Action Committee (PAC) is also on Facebook.

These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!

AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom.

Copyright © 2010 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.

imported post

woo hoo!!:celebrate:celebrate

imported post

And that's how sausage is made. If the casing on one breaks, grab the stuff and put it in a new casing! :monkey

imported post

My resident family hopes this passes. So do I. Particularly in advance of this current SCotUS14A incorporation case and Palmer vs DC. Everything 'pro' carrygives a bit more leverage to any 2A argument.

imported post

More letters have been sent and calls will be made!

Everyone reading this, at least click on the link to send the letter!
It's painless, honest!

imported post

My text to the prepared letter;

"When I first came to Arizona in 1966, there was no CWP or even a consideration of CWP. People went 'heeled' or not. Mostly openly, but I suppose some carried concealed in certain social situations. In 1994, the CWP 'permit' was created. I suppose for reciprocity considerations with neighboring states not recognizing 'open carry'. AZC 2/26 recognizes the right of the people to bear arms. The mode of carry was not addressed. Therefore what is not prohibited is allowed by default. A person under arms is no less armed openly or concealed.

SCJ Ginsburgs' opinion on 'Bearing Arms' as a result of Heller vs DC: "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

"‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Clearly then, the mode of carry is not a consideration in the free exercise of the right. Within the borders of Arizona, citizens not otherwise prohibited should retain the right to bear arms free of the contrivance of permit.

I strongly approve of severe penalties for anyone convicted of using a firearm in the attempt or commission of any criminal act or purpose.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

In 1994, the CWP 'permit' was created. I suppose for reciprocity considerations with neighboring states not recognizing 'open carry'.

Click to expand...

Just an FYI. The CCW law was created in 1994 because in 1990 an Appellate Court ruled (and the Supreme court declined to review) that "shall not be infringed" in the AZ Constitution allows the regulation of concleaed carry.

As a result of the court decision, in 1994 an onerousconcealed carry law was passedthat discouraged CCW permitswhile generating an income sourcefora government createdinstructor cartel.

That same year (1994) two other Appellate decisions drastically restricted (damn near outlawing it) open carry and vehicle carrymaking it difficult for people to comply with the law, without having a CCW permit.

It sat that way until 2005 when AzCDL was formed and started working to restore our rights.

Fred

imported post

azcdlfred wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

In 1994, the CWP 'permit' was created. I suppose for reciprocity considerations with neighboring states not recognizing 'open carry'.

Click to expand...

Just an FYI. The CCW law was created in 1994 because in 1990 an Appellate Court ruled (and the Supreme court declined to review) that "shall not be infringed" in the AZ Constitution allows the regulation of concleaed carry.

As a result of the court decision, in 1994 an onerousconcealed carry law was passedthat discouraged CCW permitswhile generating an income sourcefora government createdinstructor cartel.

That same year (1994) two other Appellate decisions drastically restricted (damn near outlawing it) open carry and vehicle carrymaking it difficult for people to comply with the law, without having a CCW permit.

It sat that way until 2005 when AzCDL was formed and started working to restore our rights.

Fred

Click to expand...

Prior to the internet... pretty much of what was known was from the spoken word. For most of us... the issue was a non-issue. "They did what? OH?" Then you buckled your gun belt 'n went blissfully (ignorant) on your way. I didn't get an AZCWP 'til '07.

imported post

AZCDL congradulations on not givin up!...My wife and I will be taking our ccw class 3/13/09 but for reciprocity and other little advantages but I think constitutional carry should still be passed..

imported post

I also have a ccw, and support the passage of sb-1108.

Great work guys!