Carry in parks < 1 sq mile / preemption question and fixing Wikipedia

imported post

Hi folks, just looking for some clarification, to correct a possible error in Wikipedia.

ARS 13-3108:

www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03108.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

This states:

"C. This section does not prohibit a political subdivision of this state from enacting and enforcing any ordinance or rule pursuant to state law, to implement or enforce state law or relating to any of the following:

...

5. Limiting firearms possession in parks or preserves of one square mile or less in area to persons who possess a concealed weapons permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112. The political subdivision shall post reasonable notice at each park or preserve. The notice shall state the following: "Carrying a firearm in this park is limited to persons who possess a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112." In parks or preserves that are more than one square mile in area, a political subdivision may designate developed or improved areas in which the political subdivision may limit firearms possession to persons who possess a concealed weapons permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112."

However...

One of AzCDL's victories this year was HB 2543 which amends this:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2543p.pdf

This PDF file has the entire section about parks of different sizes (as above) crossed out, as if this was removed.

I am looking for confirmation that in fact you can now carry openly in small parks, large parks -- any park, and that HB 2543 does in fact eliminate this ridiculous exception and extend pre-emption to small parks.

I understand that HB 2543 doesn't go into effect until late July.

Wikipedia's information on Arizona gun laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Arizona

This says:

State Preemption of local restrictions? Partial

Political subdivisions may regulate the carrying of weapons by juveniles or by their own employees or contractors when such employees or contractors are acting within the course and scope of their employment or contract. They may also prohibit the carrying of firearms by non-permit holders in public establishments and events and in parks of less than one square mile in area. Any such place where a political subdivision has prohibited carry by non-permit holders must be clearly posted.

Does this need to be updated / fixed?

And beyond this, what parks in Arizona (except for federal "facilities" like National Park offices/visitors centers) can still either prohibit firearms, or otherwise restrict carry to CCW permission slip holders?

Because if I am reading this properly, save the federal building exception, the answer is none. Is this correct?

imported post

I b'lieve the whole park shigoss was pre-empted statewide. Justuseless clutter that nobody understood anyway. I dunno of any square mile parks anyway... so it's doubtful I'd ever be 'in' one.

imported post

Wiki is listing the existing laws. Yes, after July 29th or so, the new law goes in to effect. Local laws will not be able to prohibit any firearms in any parks.

I'm not sure about the exact verbage given, but it is at least a fair extrapolation of the law.

Public events can prohibit firearms, if alcohol is served. After July, they can only limit non-CWP holders (CWP exemption).

imported post

The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can change it, however; I think the 'Wiki-Man' just has not changed the Arizona FirearmArticle yet.

imported post

I think Wiki can wait until the law is in force and the full and correct verbiage is available from the Arizona State Statute site.

If you were to change it ahead of time you could possibly cause someone to get in trouble.

imported post

TOF wrote:

I think Wiki can wait until the law is in force and the full and correct verbiage is available from the Arizona State Statute site.

If you were to change it ahead of time you could possibly cause someone to get in trouble.

Click to expand...

If someone is using Wiki as their source for lawful behavior, they deserve to get burned.

imported post

There are sections in Wikipedia that state that new regs will go into effect in the future. This is why it is problematic. If you look at the "Carry Permits Issued" section for Arizona, it has this note:

(New law passed in April 2010 that allows citizens of Arizona to carry concealed without permit when of the age 21,and will take effect July 29th, 2010.)

My assumption would be that if a law or regulation is changing in the future, owing to this note, you'd see "notes for the future" fairly consistent throughout the document. It would almost be better to remove the "New law passed" text everywhere to normalize the document so that it reflects only laws *in effect*. Inconsistency in presenting data this way (noting upcoming changes in some places but not others) is dangerous.

I agree about relying on Wikipedia, which is why I asked here. That said, some people do, and if they're going to learn a lesson about that, I'd rather it be about something benign (maybe trying a recipe and using too much hot pepper) than getting arrested.