Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Governor signs Constitutional Carry!

  1. #1
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    YOU did it! Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law. Arizona now becomes the third state to not require written permission from the government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms discretely. Because Arizona is the first state in the U.S. with a large urban population to take this significant step, this is a watershed moment for the entire country.

    AzCDL has been working towards this moment since we formed 5 years ago. Constitutional Carry has always been one of our primary goals. Every success over the last 5 years has been pursued with today’s historic occasion in mind. However, having a goal is meaningless without the support and activism of over 3,000 committed members. The citizens of Arizona, along with the citizens of other states that follow in our footsteps, owe YOU, the members of AzCDL, a debt of gratitude.

    If you don’t have a permit, don’t start carrying concealed just yet. The law won’t become effective until 90 days after “Sine Die” when the Legislature officially adjourns. Since they are still working through a slew of bills, we don’t expect Sine Die anytime soon. In past years, the effective date of bills has been around September.

    CCW permits still have a purpose. You’ll need one to streamline gun purchases, to carry in states that honor Arizona permits and for carrying concealed in establishments that serve alcohol. And, the training you receive to obtain a permit is an added bonus. Along with restoring your right to bear arms, SB 1108 added additional training opportunities for obtaining a permit. NRA classes and training from places like Front Sight and Gunsite will be able to qualify as permit training.

    If you decide not to obtain a CCW permit, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t train. The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the responsibility that comes with it. Take that money that you save on permit and renewal fees and spend it on quality training as often as you can. Lead by example – the world is watching.

    For the record, AzCDL contacted the other major candidates for Governor, Terry Goddard, Dean Martin, Buzz Mills, and John Munger, about whether they would have signed SB 1108. At this point Dean Martin, Buzz Mills, and John Munger have responded that they support the bill and would have signed it. We are still waiting to hear from Terry Goddard.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    GREAT NEWS!!!

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Great job man!

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Congratulations! :celebrate
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400

    Post imported post

    Great Job! :celebrate:celebrate
    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, ,
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    azcdlfred wrote:
    We are still waiting to hear from Terry Goddard.
    Don't hold your breath, Goddard thinks his shiet don't stink and is owed the govs office because of his name.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    Fred, if I may suggest.

    I believe the current CCW permit is our "foot through the door" for the restoration of other rights. It may be more palatable for the politicos to allow campus carry for those who go through the trouble and training to get their permit. Very much like a permit is still required for carry in an establishment that serves alcohol and the other exceptions that are currently in place for CCW holders.

    What are your thoughts?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Holy Crap!
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

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

    Post imported post

    Dahwg wrote:
    Fred, if I may suggest. I believe the current CCW permit is our "foot through the door" for the restoration of other rights. It may be more palatable for the politicos to allow campus carry for those who go through the trouble and training to get their permit. Very much like a permit is still required for carry in an establishment that serves alcohol and the other exceptions that are currently in place for CCW holders. What are your thoughts?
    The current permit system remains in place. Under federal law, only people with permits are allowed to carry on school (K-12) grounds, so that's the only option we have when rolling back the State restrictions. We'll also use it as an entry point for Campus Carry.

    Fred


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    Horray for AZ!

    (a few questions though
    I am a AZ permit holder, what happens when my permit expires?
    will DPS still retain the permit division?
    Any word on what will happen with reciprocity with other states?

    Is AZ now like AK, where there will still be a CCW, but generally only for reciprocity?

    sorry for being so ignorant, I just dont want to get caught "with my pants around my ankles" while concealing out of state.....
    Thanks!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

    Thats all I can say, except...

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  12. #12
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    AZ Patriot wrote:
    Horray for AZ!

    (a few questions though
    I am a AZ permit holder, what happens when my permit expires?
    will DPS still retain the permit division?
    Any word on what will happen with reciprocity with other states?

    Is AZ now like AK, where there will still be a CCW, but generally only for reciprocity?

    sorry for being so ignorant, I just dont want to get caught "with my pants around my ankles" while concealing out of state.....
    Thanks!!!
    The permit system does not go away. You can still renew your permits and DPS will still be issuing them. Reciprocity is unaffected, as long as you have a permit,because we still have a permit system that requires training.

    I recommend reading the bil at the AZ legislature's site.

    Fred

  13. #13
    Regular Member TOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Happy Jack, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    443

    Post imported post

    If Goddard responds with an affirmative that he would have signed the bill, DO NOT BELIEVE HIM.

    I am happy so far with the Governor we have. She seems to irritate all sides from time to time which in my opinion is good.


    If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You get another chance.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    From Virginia, congratulations to all of our members and friends in Arizona for your bold and Constitutional move yesterday!

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Arizona is now one of the few: Alaska and Vermont!

    Way to go Arizona!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    From Massachusetts, Good for you!! Awesome job Arizona!!!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    TOF wrote:
    If Goddard responds with an affirmative that he would have signed the bill, DO NOT BELIEVE HIM.

    I am happy so far with the Governor we have. She seems to irritate all sides from time to time which in my opinion is good.

    I'm with you 100% on that. If I remember right Goddard was against Fish getting a new trial

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    You are proud of a new law that violates the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments?

    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 WITHIN HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL IN OR ON A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION:
    (b) WHEN CONTACTED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FAILING TO ACCURATELY ANSWER THE OFFICER IF THE OFFICER ASKS WHETHER THE PERSON IS CARRYING A CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPON;

    J. IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY TAKE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE FIREARM FOR THE DURATION OF THAT CONTACT.

  19. #19
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    Yard Sale wrote:
    You are proud of a new law that violates the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments?

    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 WITHIN HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL IN OR ON A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION:
    (b) WHEN CONTACTED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FAILING TO ACCURATELY ANSWER THE OFFICER IF THE OFFICER ASKS WHETHER THE PERSON IS CARRYING A CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPON;

    J. IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY TAKE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE FIREARM FOR THE DURATION OF THAT CONTACT.
    The "when contacted" is a restatement of what is already in the false statements statutes.

    The "temporary custody" is a codification of the Terry v Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision that is alreadydefacto "law." By restating Terry v Ohio it keeps law enforcement to a tougher standard than the recent Arizona v Johnson which allows cops to disarm anyone they think appears dangerous - like an old man with a scowl, or more accurately, any minority.

    Nothing new was given to law enforcement that they did not already have in Arizona statute or by court decisions. Meanwhile by eliminating ARS 13-3102.G wetook away the foundation for the 1994 Arizona Adams and Moerman decisions that clouded open and vechicle carry. And by removing the concealed weapons violations, we neutralized the 1990 Dano v Collins which gave us the CCW laws.

    Real life is messy.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Can one openly carry in an establishment which serves alcohol in AZ?

    If so, this is pretty darn good. As a part-time Virginian, the notion of having to OC in establishments which serve alcohol is old hat (although that requirement no longer exists there), and being allowed to CC without a permit most anywhere is quite appealing.

    I may have to spend some time in Arizona now. :celebrate

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    azcdlfred wrote:
    Yard Sale wrote:
    You are proud of a new law that violates the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments?

    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 WITHIN HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL IN OR ON A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION:
    (b) WHEN CONTACTED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FAILING TO ACCURATELY ANSWER THE OFFICER IF THE OFFICER ASKS WHETHER THE PERSON IS CARRYING A CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPON;

    J. IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY TAKE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE FIREARM FOR THE DURATION OF THAT CONTACT.
    The "when contacted" is a restatement of what is already in the false statements statutes.

    The "temporary custody" is a codification of the Terry v Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision that is already defacto "law." By restating Terry v Ohio it keeps law enforcement to a tougher standard than the recent Arizona v Johnson which allows cops to disarm anyone they think appears dangerous - like an old man with a scowl, or more accurately, any minority.

    Nothing new was given to law enforcement that they did not already have in Arizona statute or by court decisions. Meanwhile by eliminating ARS 13-3102.G we took away the foundation for the 1994 Arizona Adams and Moerman decisions that clouded open and vechicle carry. And by removing the concealed weapons violations, we neutralized the 1990 Dano v Collins which gave us the CCW laws.

    Real life is messy.
    Doesn't "failing to accurately answer" imply an abrogation of the 5th amendment right to remain silent?

    Generally false statement prohibitions sidestep the 5th amendment issue by permitting simply no response to an LEO at all.

    Also, "IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM" doesn't sound like a very stringent standard to me.

    Can someone refresh my memory what the legal definition of "contact" in this context is?

    Isn't it a "voluntary contact if an officer greets me and I respond with hello? Can he then take my firearm whilst we're conversing?

    Also, if a cop decides he wants to ask me a question, isn't his attempting to do so a "contact" even if he has no actual suspicion of any wrongdoing? Isn't it even still a contact if I don't respond to his question? Can he disarm me then?

  22. #22
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Can one openly carry in an establishment which serves alcohol in AZ? If so, this is pretty darn good. As a part-time Virginian, the notion of having to OC in establishments which serve alcohol is old hat (although that requirement no longer exists there), and being allowed to CC without a permit most anywhere is quite appealing. I may have to spend some time in Arizona now.
    Unfortunatley not. Until last year, no one could carry where booze is served. last year, the law was changed to allow ONLY CCW permit holders to carry. The new law doesn't change that.

    As a former Virginian, Arizona laws suck big time when it comes to Restaurant Carry. My personal goal is for it to be like VA was when I lived there with the addition of open or discreet carry.

    Fred

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    azcdlfred wrote:
    Dahwg wrote:
    Fred, if I may suggest. I believe the current CCW permit is our "foot through the door" for the restoration of other rights. It may be more palatable for the politicos to allow campus carry for those who go through the trouble and training to get their permit. Very much like a permit is still required for carry in an establishment that serves alcohol and the other exceptions that are currently in place for CCW holders. What are your thoughts?
    The current permit system remains in place. Under federal law, only people with permits are allowed to carry on school (K-12) grounds, so that's the only option we have when rolling back the State restrictions. We'll also use it as an entry point for Campus Carry.

    Fred
    Montana has the right idea here. They passed a law stating that for the purposes of the FGFSZ act, all persons in Montana that are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm are licensed.

    Edit: spelling correction

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Doesn't "failing to accurately answer" imply an abrogation of the 5th amendment right to remain silent?

    Generally false statement prohibitions sidestep the 5th amendment issue by permitting simply no response to an LEO at all.
    No. The 5th Amendment prohibition on self-incrimination does not prohibit the government from requiring a person to disclose lawful activity. Furthermore, it has also been construed to allow compelled testimony that is, on its face, self-incriminating, if the possibility of criminal prosecution is removed (e.g., expiration of a statute of limitations or granting of immunity,whicha prosecutor may force upon a person and thencompel that person to then give self-incriminating testimony). Only if a response would be self-incriminating, meaning a realistic probability of criminal prosecution, does the 5th Amendment apply.

    marshaul wrote:
    Also, "IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM" doesn't sound like a very stringent standard to me.

    Can someone refresh my memory what the legal definition of "contact" in this context is?

    Isn't it a "voluntary contact if an officer greets me and I respond with hello? Can he then take my firearm whilst we're conversing?

    Also, if a cop decides he wants to ask me a question, isn't his attempting to do so a "contact" even if he has no actual suspicion of any wrongdoing? Isn't it even still a contact if I don't respond to his question? Can he disarm me then?
    Read the bill. Under future A.R.S.§ 13-3102(L)(1), "'contacted by a law enforcement officer' means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense has been or is about to be committed." As Fred said, this actually represents a reduction in an LEO's authority in light of all the controlling statutes and case law.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Doesn't "failing to accurately answer" imply an abrogation of the 5th amendment right to remain silent?

    Generally false statement prohibitions sidestep the 5th amendment issue by permitting simply no response to an LEO at all.
    No. The 5th Amendment prohibition on self-incrimination does not prohibit the government from requiring a person to disclose lawful activity. Furthermore, it has also been construed to allow compelled testimony that is, on its face, self-incriminating, if the possibility of criminal prosecution is removed (e.g., expiration of a statute of limitations or granting of immunity,*which*a prosecutor may force upon a person and then*compel that person to then give self-incriminating testimony). Only if a response would be self-incriminating, meaning a realistic probability of criminal prosecution, does the 5th Amendment apply.
    The problem with this is that for some people carrying a firearm isn't lawful behavior.

    This seems to create a double standard. What if someone is a prohibited person? Are they simply exempt, just like that?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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