Question about new carry law?

imported post

As I understand it, the new carry law requires one to truthfully answer an officer if he asks if one is carrying a weapon. If one fails to do this, what's the designation for that offense? Is it a misdemeanor or felony? I'm just curious about this.

imported post

I'll have to defer to someone better versed in the new law than I am to figure out the penalty/crime in that case, but that isn't necessarily new to this law. It has ALWAYS been illegal to lie to a law enforcement officer. This would include saying 'no' if they ask if you have a firearm (assuming of course you do indeed have one with you.)

imported post

me812 wrote:

As I understand it, the new carry law requires one to truthfully answer an officer if he asks if one is carrying a weapon. If one fails to do this, what's the designation for that offense? Is it a misdemeanor or felony? I'm just curious about this.

Click to expand...

You should be curious enough to allow Google to be your friend...

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/s.1108approps.doc.htm

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

me812 wrote:

As I understand it, the new carry law requires one to truthfully answer an officer if he asks if one is carrying a weapon. If one fails to do this, what's the designation for that offense? Is it a misdemeanor or felony? I'm just curious about this.

Click to expand...

You should be curious enough to allow Google to be your friend...

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Flegtext%2F49leg%2F2r%2Fadopted%2Fs%2E1108approps%2Edoc%2Ehtm

Click to expand...

Yes, I know how to use google. I was just hoping I could get a quick answer without having to wade through a bunch of legalese.

In any case, are you sure that that's the final version of the bill that passed? IIRC, it was changed several times during the legislative process.

imported post

me812 wrote:

GWbiker wrote:

me812 wrote:

As I understand it, the new carry law requires one to truthfully answer an officer if he asks if one is carrying a weapon. If one fails to do this, what's the designation for that offense? Is it a misdemeanor or felony? I'm just curious about this.

Click to expand...

You should be curious enough to allow Google to be your friend...

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Flegtext%2F49leg%2F2r%2Fadopted%2Fs%2E1108approps%2Edoc%2Ehtm

Click to expand...

Yes, I know how to use google. I was just hoping I could get a quick answer without having to wade through a bunch of legalese.

In any case, are you sure that that's the final version of the bill that passed? IIRC, it was changed several times during the legislative process.

Click to expand...

Read the bill. Follow the path of the amendments. LOOK for the final version. Search for the final version that our Governor signed into law.

Sheezzzz......:banghead:

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

me812 wrote:

GWbiker wrote:

me812 wrote:

As I understand it, the new carry law requires one to truthfully answer an officer if he asks if one is carrying a weapon. If one fails to do this, what's the designation for that offense? Is it a misdemeanor or felony? I'm just curious about this.

Click to expand...

You should be curious enough to allow Google to be your friend...

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Flegtext%2F49leg%2F2r%2Fadopted%2Fs%2E1108approps%2Edoc%2Ehtm

Click to expand...

Yes, I know how to use google. I was just hoping I could get a quick answer without having to wade through a bunch of legalese.

In any case, are you sure that that's the final version of the bill that passed? IIRC, it was changed several times during the legislative process.

Click to expand...

Read the bill. Follow the path of the amendments. LOOK for the final version. Search for the final version that our Governor signed into law.

Sheezzzz......:banghead:

Click to expand...

In fairness, I tried to find a final version of this by googling around - one which said, "FINAL SB 1108" and had trouble finding it. I could find various versions of the bill in various states of contention, but no obvious rubber stamped "this is the one about to go into effect." I'm sure something somewhere is marked that way with arcane terminology not obvious to me.

azleg.gov is timing out for me right now, which is kind of sad, really as it's one of the first hits to come up.

Then there is this:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1108&Session_Id=93

which has "Introduced version" and "Senate engrossed version" (whatever the hell "senate engrossed" means. What weird language.)

Finally I find:

Http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument...leg/2r/summary/s.1108-2347_as enacted.doc.htm

I'm not a stupid person, but the process to find this is terrible.

Anyway.

Amendments to S.B. 1108 Adopted by Committee of the Whole

1. Changes, from a class 3 to a class 1 misdemeanor, the penalty for failing to inform an officer that one is carrying a concealed deadly weapon when asked.

Click to expand...

Would indicate that this is a class 1 misdemeanor

Now for funsies, let's see what a class 1 misdemeanor entails.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00707.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

1. For a class 1 misdemeanor, six months.

Click to expand...

OK, so, maximum 6 months in jail. Up from 30 days (class 3). This was probably required to stop police from opposing the bill. I remember from the AzCDL mailings that something was done to accommodate police concerns (to get them to switch from opposed to neutral), but don't recall if this specifically was it.

A sentence to pay a fine for a class 1 misdemeanor shall be a sentence to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not more than two thousand five hundred dollars.

Click to expand...

Hope this helps.

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

I remember from the AzCDL mailings that something was done to accommodate police concerns (to get them to switch from opposed to neutral), but don't recall if this specifically was it.

Click to expand...

Sausage Making 101.

Originally, law enforcement wanted the same language that Alaska used in their Constitutional Carry law - everyone with a gun had to announce to any and every cop they ever saw that they had a gun. Picture walking into a donut shop and seeing a dozen cops and shouting "I have a gun."

Eventually, they accepted the idea of cops having to ask first, but wanted a requirement for a truthful response. The original language called for the Class 3 misdemeanor, which was lower than the Class 1 for "false statements" to an LEO in other sections of the law. Sooooo.... inthe new billit was changed to be the same as the false statements section and opposition was dropped.

For those who want to see the final language of the bill, as signed by the governor, it's here.

imported post

I would hope that this requirement to answer is somehow challenged and found unconstitutional, but I don't have any expectation of that ever happening. Especially after the recent case that revised the Miranda ruling.

As a rule I do not talk to police. I do not acknowledge them if approached on the street, and if I am driving and get pulled over I give them the documents I am required to and do not say anything else. I certainly do not answer questions. I can't be accused of lying to the police if I do not say anything at all.

I don't put much faith into words on paper except when there is someone willing to enforce them with violence, which is why I generally follow the "written law", but last I checked the 5th amendment to the constitution was still part of the document that every officer swore an oath to uphold and defend. The government has plenty of armed enforcers willing to enforce their laws against the people, but the people have no enforcers to uphold the document that is supposed to protect us from them. When was the last time any of them went to jail for violating the constitution?

imported post

wewd wrote:

I would hope that this requirement to answer is somehow challenged and found unconstitutional, but I don't have any expectation of that ever happening. Especially after the recent case that revised the Miranda ruling.

As a rule I do not talk to police. I do not acknowledge them if approached on the street, and if I am driving and get pulled over I give them the documents I am required to and do not say anything else. I certainly do not answer questions. I can't be accused of lying to the police if I do not say anything at all.

I don't put much faith into words on paper except when there is someone willing to enforce them with violence, which is why I generally follow the "written law", but last I checked the 5th amendment to the constitution was still part of the document that every officer swore an oath to uphold and defend. The government has plenty of armed enforcers willing to enforce their laws against the people, but the people have no enforcers to uphold the document that is supposed to protect us from them. When was the last time any of them went to jail for violating the constitution?

Click to expand...

+1

But at least AZ is moving in the direction of liberty... CA on the other hand...

imported post

azcdlfred wrote:

Sausage Making 101.

Click to expand...

A phrase I see a lot from AzCDL but at this point I am loathe to complain about it. This has been a stellar year.

Originally, law enforcement wanted the same language that Alaska used in their Constitutional Carry law - everyone with a gun had to announce to any and every cop they ever saw that they had a gun.  Picture walking into a donut shop and seeing a dozen cops and shouting "I have a gun."

Click to expand...

That is a curious requirement. Is the Alaskan Constitutional Carry law the one which is presently in effect? If so, I wonder if people actually do that in Alaska. I would imagine that could very easy cause a lot of panic on a regular basis.

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

That is a curious requirement. Is the Alaskan Constitutional Carry law the one which is presently in effect? If so, I wonder if people actually do that in Alaska. I would imagine that could very easy cause a lot of panic on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

I'm certain that isthe current Alaska law. It was brought upduring "negotiations" at the Capitol. Most people probably ignore it, but it's a tool that can used by law enforcement at their whim. Kind of like how the existing CCW law could be used.

Thank your for your understanding about "sausage making." We deal in the real politcal world and it's nothing like "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." Since we started in 2005, AzCDL has had a string of successes. Allinvovled sausuage making. We also learned incrementalism from the "anti" crowd. Ask for the stars and settle for the moon. We also think long term. We've been laying the foundationfor this year's Constitutional Carry for five years,and we will use it as a springboard to further gains.

Fred

imported post

azcdlfred wrote:

crisisweasel wrote:

That is a curious requirement. Is the Alaskan Constitutional Carry law the one which is presently in effect? If so, I wonder if people actually do that in Alaska. I would imagine that could very easy cause a lot of panic on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

I'm certain that is the current Alaska law.   It was brought up during "negotiations" at the Capitol.  Most people probably ignore it, but it's a tool that can used by law enforcement at their whim.  Kind of like how the existing CCW law could be used.

Thank your for your understanding about "sausage making."  We deal in the real politcal world and it's nothing like "Mr. Smith goes to Washington."  Since we started in 2005, AzCDL has had a string of successes.  All invovled sausuage making.  We also learned incrementalism from the "anti" crowd.  Ask for the stars and settle for the moon.  We also think long term.  We've been laying the foundation for this year's Constitutional Carry for five years, and we will use it as a springboard to further gains.

Fred

Click to expand...

hmmm.. campus carry would be a nice "further gain". Start out by asking for it straight up. If they balk (which you know they will) ask for it for current CCW permit holders only (like the restaurant carry). We can work on getting even those requirements dropped at a later time, but since I haven't seen blood running in the streets from the restaurant carry law, then that should be our jumping board.

imported post

Dahwg wrote:

hmmm.. campus carry would be a nice "further gain". Start out by asking for it straight up. If they balk (which you know they will) ask for it for current CCW permit holders only (like the restaurant carry). We can work on getting even those requirements dropped at a later time, but since I haven't seen blood running in the streets from the restaurant carry law, then that should be our jumping board.

Click to expand...

It's on the agenda and we've beenbringing it up for the last couple of years. Eventually we will prevail. A few years ago the concept of not needinggovernment permission to let a few inches of cloth cover a firearm scared the crap out of legislators. Now it's a done deal.

Another factor is the realization at the Capitol that AzCDL won't go away :dude:

imported post

If anything, cite Utah law when bringing this issue up. Utah allows guns in the schools and I can't remember any shooting rampages happening there. People need to understand that a sign on Luby's that says "No guns allowed" is as effective as a sign on the WTC that says "Nobombings allowed." I don't understand why so many people just don't get it.