Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Underage after 29th?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Snakemathis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Prescott Valley, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    107

    Underage after 29th?

    Let me start off by saying that I do not in any way condone the actions to which I speak nor do I recommend anyone do so themselves. It is an entirely personal decision and I wish for my choice to be respected. That being said, I have a problem with places that are no firearms (join the club right?) and attempt to avoid them as much as possible. However, that is not always possible as most of you know. I often concealed carry into these places for my own protection. As of July 29th a permit will no longer be required for concealed carry so long as you are over 21. I am not over 21. Now I know I will still be able to be trespassed, but what will the charges be for concealing under the age of 21? As I stated before, I do not advise anyone to partake in this behavior, I do however, and would like to know what charges I could be faced with if caught after the 29th. Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    You will be arrested for misdemeanor Weapons Misconduct (ARS 13-3102A2). It will be a Class 3 Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail.
    Last edited by AZkopper; 07-14-2010 at 03:16 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216
    You will be arrested for misdemeanor Weapons Misconduct (ARS 13-3102A2). It will be a Class 3 Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail.

    CCW without a permit is a misdemeanor which does not disturb the peace. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that, while police have the option of arresting people for those types of offenses, people were not normally arrested, just cited and released.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mFonz77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by me812 View Post
    You will be arrested for misdemeanor Weapons Misconduct (ARS 13-3102A2). It will be a Class 3 Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail.

    CCW without a permit is a misdemeanor which does not disturb the peace. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that, while police have the option of arresting people for those types of offenses, people were not normally arrested, just cited and released.
    CCW without a permit will no longer be a crime, is the point. However, you must be 21 to CCW without a permit. I beleive that would be misdemeanor weapons misconduct.

  5. #5
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by me812 View Post
    You will be arrested for misdemeanor Weapons Misconduct (ARS 13-3102A2). It will be a Class 3 Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail.

    CCW without a permit is a misdemeanor which does not disturb the peace. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that, while police have the option of arresting people for those types of offenses, people were not normally arrested, just cited and released.
    Whether you are physically arrested or cited and released, it will still be deemed an arrest, and you will go to court as a defendant in a misdemeanor crime case. If convicted, it is punishable by fine, or up to 30 days in jail, or a combination of both.

    Bottom line, concealed carry is a priviledge, not a right (see various state constitutions and legal decisions from the 19th century onward). AZ has seen fit to legislate it to a near right, but there are restrictions (primarily the duty to inform and the age requirement.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Just get a permit then........

    But you cannot....

    E. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to an applicant who meets all of the following conditions:

    1. Is a resident of this state or a United States citizen.

    2. Is twenty-one years of age or older.
    Nothing changed for you. If you were concealing before, and were under 21.....

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...13&DocType=ARS
    Last edited by wrightme; 07-14-2010 at 02:50 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    primarily the duty to inform and the age requirement.
    Just a nitpick, but we don't really have a 'duty to inform' but in reality it's simply a requirement not to lie to an officer. It's always been that way, and we have no duty to tell an officer we are armed unless they ask. This applies now, and after the 29th.

    To the OP, I hate to be the armchair *******, but I'm curious as to what places you think it's "not always possible' to disarm before entering, or simply not enter at all? I have a hard time coming up with any such situations off the top of my head.
    Last edited by Thoreau; 07-14-2010 at 03:01 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau View Post
    Just a nitpick, but we don't really have a 'duty to inform' but in reality it's simply a requirement not to lie to an officer. It's always been that way, and we have no duty to tell an officer we are armed unless they ask. This applies now, and after the 29th.

    To the OP, I hate to be the armchair *******, but I'm curious as to what places you think it's "not always possible' to disarm before entering, or simply not enter at all? I have a hard time coming up with any such situations off the top of my head.

    Just off the top of my head, under 21, possibly a student.

    How about college classes?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316
    That's fine and dandy, except it's illegal to be carrying concealed for two reasons. First of course is, under 21 as wrightme pointed out. Second is that it's illegal to carry on a college campus even with a permit. This isn't Colorado. Neither of these realities will change on the 29th either.

    That said, that is still a personal CHOICE to go to such places. Nobody forces a person to attend a certain university ni a certain state.

    I don't much like paying my taxes, but I still do because that is the law.
    Last edited by Thoreau; 07-14-2010 at 04:16 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau View Post
    That's fine and dandy, except it's illegal to be carrying concealed for two reasons. First of course is, under 21 as wrightme pointed out. Second is that it's illegal to carry on a college campus even with a permit. This isn't Colorado. Neither of these realities will change on the 29th either.

    That said, that is still a personal CHOICE to go to such places. Nobody forces a person to attend a certain university ni a certain state.

    I don't much like paying my taxes, but I still do because that is the law.
    Just playing devils advocate here, but even if it was Colorado, im pretty sure that since he is under 21, he cannot carry on campus there either. But either way, maybe he cannot afford out of state tuition and the move to Colorado?

    The way i see this question is similar to somebody asking, "What happens get caught shoplifting?"
    Some people will think its a horrible idea. Sure you have the chance of getting away with it, and nothing happening. If you get caught, you know there will be consequences, and you are merely asking what they are. Now to a professional criminal, it might be a great idea due to the simplicity of it, and the low chance of getting caught, or being actively pursued compared to say, hacking the CIA's computers. Most people will never do it, criminals wont think twice, and then there is the person stealing food in order to stay alive.

    I agree that it is a personal choice to break the law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Snakemathis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Prescott Valley, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    107
    Its particularly a place of employment, its not posted and I have not been told not to carry at all, I just prefer it not being seen. And sorry, this was never intended to start a debate, I just wanted to know how the punishment would change after the 29th. And I understand that it is a privellage to conceal, but a right to carry. So if I am forced out of open carry, shouldnt I then be allowed to concealed carry as opposed to giving up my right to self defense? Just doesnt really seem like its much of a "right" if I cant exercise it everywhere. Anywhom, thanks for the replies.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakemathis View Post
    Its particularly a place of employment, its not posted and I have not been told not to carry at all, I just prefer it not being seen. And sorry, this was never intended to start a debate, I just wanted to know how the punishment would change after the 29th. And I understand that it is a privellage to conceal, but a right to carry. So if I am forced out of open carry, shouldnt I then be allowed to concealed carry as opposed to giving up my right to self defense? Just doesnt really seem like its much of a "right" if I cant exercise it everywhere. Anywhom, thanks for the replies.
    Of course you should be allowed. But many states deny this.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakemathis View Post
    Its particularly a place of employment, its not posted and I have not been told not to carry at all, I just prefer it not being seen. And sorry, this was never intended to start a debate, I just wanted to know how the punishment would change after the 29th. And I understand that it is a privellage to conceal, but a right to carry. So if I am forced out of open carry, shouldnt I then be allowed to concealed carry as opposed to giving up my right to self defense? Just doesnt really seem like its much of a "right" if I cant exercise it everywhere. Anywhom, thanks for the replies.
    You won't get many to argue against you being allowed to carry, how, when, and where you please here.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  14. #14
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Your right to bear arms does not trump your employers rights to regulate how his property is used. You also have a right to choose a different employer, if it is a problem for you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    132
    And while you can purchase, own and open carry a firearm at 18 (Purchase from private party) you still cannot conceal it yet. Doesn't make sense, i know, but thats the law. Just because you feel that it is your right to self defense, and since you cannot OC, CC is the only way to not give up that right, doesn't mean the police cannot charge you with breaking the law. I dont agree with the law, but thats what it is.

    Im sure by now you know that if you get caught concealing while under the age of 21, you can get charged with a misdemeanor. Its still at the officers discretion, but most likely, they will charge you. If its concealed, then its concealed though. Its all your choice, as long as your aware that it is against the law, which you clearly are. Rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 fits pretty well here

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    IF YOU GET CAUGHT, you will be arrested for misdemeanor Weapons Misconduct (ARS 13-3102A2). It will be a Class 3 Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail.
    There, fixed it.

    I've been carrying concealed with no permit ever since I let my permit expire. That includes today.

    It's a risk I take to exercise my Rights under a tyrannical regime that doesn't recognize them. Where I live, it's considered a Felony, and not a small one. Should you do the same? Guess it depends on how easy it is for you to pretend that being 'law abiding' is a good thing... For me, it's a moral obligation. If I do not defy evil, I am supporting it. Being the kind of person who hides behind 'law abiding citizen' is something my moral convictions just won't let me live with.

    For posting this; Am I a fool, or do they clank when I walk? Who cares? It's not about ego or being a show off. It's about the difference between a citizen and a slave.

    I won't advise anyone to do as I do, but I have a lot more respect for those who do. Playing along with tyrants is nothing to be proud of, and is certainly no badge of honor or morality.

    Besides, they'd have to search you to find it, right? If you conduct yourself in an otherwise lawful manner, no such cause arises. If they find your weapon while conducting an illegal search of your person, Fruit of the Poisoned Tree, etc... It'll cost you to defend yourself though.
    Last edited by ixtow; 07-19-2010 at 02:16 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    It's a risk I take to exercise my Rights under a tyrannical regime that doesn't recognize them. .
    Concealed Carry is not a right, it is a priviledge. Check numerous state Constitutions (Kentucky 1850, Texas 1868, Georgia 1868, Tennessee 1870, Missouri 1875, North Carolina 1875, Colorado 1876, Louisiana 1879, Montana 1889, Idaho 1889, Mississippi 1890, Utah 1896, Oklahoma 1907, New Mexico 1912), and case laws from the 19th century onward.

    Open Carry is a right.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    Concealed Carry is not a right, it is a priviledge. Check numerous state Constitutions (Kentucky 1850, Texas 1868, Georgia 1868, Tennessee 1870, Missouri 1875, North Carolina 1875, Colorado 1876, Louisiana 1879, Montana 1889, Idaho 1889, Mississippi 1890, Utah 1896, Oklahoma 1907, New Mexico 1912), and case laws from the 19th century onward.

    Open Carry is a right.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Seems like a right to me, and not a privilege.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Seems like a right to me, and not a privilege.
    As long as case law, statute, and state constitutions differ with your opinion, your opinion holds no weight in the eyes of the law.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    As long as case law, statute, and state constitutions differ with your opinion, your opinion holds no weight in the eyes of the law.
    Or rather, that the law somehow trumps the Constitution? Or perhaps, laws infringe upon our rights? Shocking, I know.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  21. #21
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Or rather, that the law somehow trumps the Constitution? Or perhaps, laws infringe upon our rights? Shocking, I know.
    "The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it."--H.L. Mencken

    The more things change the more stay stay the same.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Or rather, that the law somehow trumps the Constitution? Or perhaps, laws infringe upon our rights? Shocking, I know.
    At times, laws DO "trump" the Constitution. And the mechanism for challenge is clear, and works in many instances.

    Laws are the rule, unless challenged and tossed down. McDonald v Chicago was a reasonable example. It really does not matter what WE believe; it matters what transpires in the courts after a conviction challenge reaches the courts.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Seems like a right to me, and not a privilege.
    Your Right to Bear Arms is a Right. HOW they are born is subject to regulation. Just like your right to peacably assemble and freedom of speech is a RIGHT, but HOW you exercise it can be regulated. You must get a permit to hold a parade down main street or hold a rally on the city hall steps.

    Under your opinion, prisoners in jail should have their guns with them, since they have a RIGHT to bear arms, and apparently Rights cannot be curtailed or reasonably regulated.

    We are a Constitutional Republic, not an anarchy.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    Your Right to Bear Arms is a Right. HOW they are born is subject to regulation. Just like your right to peacably assemble and freedom of speech is a RIGHT, but HOW you exercise it can be regulated. You must get a permit to hold a parade down main street or hold a rally on the city hall steps.

    Under your opinion, prisoners in jail should have their guns with them, since they have a RIGHT to bear arms, and apparently Rights cannot be curtailed or reasonably regulated.

    We are a Constitutional Republic, not an anarchy.
    Wrong, criminals deserve to be hung. Of course, there are so many rules and regulations, everyone breaks at least 1 law every day. By criminals, I mean murderers, thieves, etc. Also, you have to love to get taxed for everything you do. Want to assemble? Fine, but there's a tax. Want to buy something. Fine, but there's a tax. Want to drive? Fine, but there's a tax. If you haven't noticed, we were once a Constitutional Republic, now, I hardly think so. We are coming closer and closer to a democracy.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    As long as case law, statute, and state constitutions differ with your opinion, your opinion holds no weight in the eyes of the law.
    Which is precisely what makes the law wrong.

    There is really no point in arguing about this. Some people support the fabricated mysterious 'finding' of the courts that it is subject to regulation. Some people don't. I am one of the latter. I've no doubt this 'finding' exists, and there are consequences for defying it. But this 'finding' did not come from law, but is an arbitrary contrivance that wrests a Right into a Privilege... At least for those who tolerate it.

    The shouting of "fire" is, in essence, not a restriction on the 1st Amendment, so this analogy is flawed. It is a restriction on causing harm to others. No action that has an interest in doing harm to others is a Right. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is not, at it's root, speech. Therefore it is not protected by the 1st, and the 1st is not infringed upon by that limitation. I don't believe the Court's interpretation is as granular as mine, but the Spirit is the same if not so well defined.
    Last edited by ixtow; 07-19-2010 at 11:06 PM.

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
  •