Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Some SB1108 questions...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Some SB1108 questions...

    I'm going through SB 1108 with a fine-toothed IANAL comb. (text here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1108s.pdf)

    Here are some questions that need asking:

    ARS 13-3102 will now say that a person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly carrying a deadly weapon (not a pocket knife) either in the commission of a serious offense (defined elsewhere) or "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."

    Where does the 5th amendment fit into this equation? If you fail to answer at all (per your 5th amendment right to remain silent), does that constitute failure to accurately answer the question? What if you don't understand the question (no English, deaf, etc.)?

    Subsection A, paragraph 12 (no firearms on school grounds) of this section shall not apply to the possession of a:
    1. Firearm that is not loaded and that is carried within a means of
    transportation under the control of an adult provided that if the adult
    leaves the means of transportation the firearm shall not be visible from the
    outside of the means of transportation and the means of transportation shall
    be locked.

    Hmmm, how exactly is a 'means of transportation' defined? Does that include bicycles? Razor scooters? Could you bolt a lockable container to a razor scooter and put an unloaded gun into it and go onto school grounds?

    Did anybody else find anything interesting?

  2. #2
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by DustoneGT View Post
    ARS 13-3102 will now say that a person commits misconduct "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." Where does the 5th amendment fit into this equation?
    The 5th amendment applies only if you are incriminating yourself, i.e. you are a prohibited possessor. Otherwise, it's simply answering a question asked by a cop during an official cop/citizen interraction (traffic stop, etc.). The lanugage is a restatement of the existing false statement language in another section. It's not new and it helped get law enforcement to drop their opposition to the bill.

    The option would be no Constitutional Carry bill becoming law in under 12 hours.

    Fred

  3. #3
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Granted, the "inform" language in the law is not great. Hopefully we can get that changed in future sessions.

    ARS 13-1801.19. "Means of transportation" means any vehicle.

    ARS 28-101.57 "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

    So, "vehicle" does not mean bicycle, skateboard, razor scooter, etc. Nor does it mean trains or trollies. It does include cars, motorcycles, motor scooters, commerical trucks, horse drawn carriages, stage coaches, etc.
    Last edited by AZkopper; 07-28-2010 at 04:22 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216
    ARS 13-3102 will now say that a person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly carrying a deadly weapon (not a pocket knife) either in the commission of a serious offense (defined elsewhere) or "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."

    Where does the 5th amendment fit into this equation? If you fail to answer at all (per your 5th amendment right to remain silent), does that constitute failure to accurately answer the question? What if you don't understand the question (no English, deaf, etc.)?


    It seems to me that this is on very shaky ground constitutionally, especially if the person carrying the weapon is a prohibited possessor. After all, if a PP were to answer truthfully to having a deadly weapon, he'd be incriminating himself, especially if the cop knows his identity. In fact, the SCOTUS has already ruled on a case much like this, Haynes v. U.S, where they found in favor of the PP.
    Last edited by me812; 07-28-2010 at 04:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member mFonz77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    265
    So Fred, from the standpoint of someone like Handgunlaw.us, is this now going to make Arizona a "must inform" state?

    As someone who had a CCW before this bill got off the ground, I personally did not inform (yes, got pulled over a few times), and there was never an issue, because I'm not a criminal with the intent of shooting policemen.

    Don't we already have laws against shooting policemen

  6. #6
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by mFonz77 View Post
    So Fred, from the standpoint of someone like Handgunlaw.us, is this now going to make Arizona a "must inform" state?

    As someone who had a CCW before this bill got off the ground, I personally did not inform (yes, got pulled over a few times), and there was never an issue, because I'm not a criminal with the intent of shooting policemen.

    Don't we already have laws against shooting policemen
    I think this is more like a 'mustn't lie to the officer if asked' state.
    Last edited by March Hare; 07-28-2010 at 04:48 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mFonz77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by March Hare View Post
    I think this is more like a 'mustn't lie to the cop if asked' state.
    Agree with you there, but now that ANYONE could have a gun in ANY situation, wouldn't one logically presume that that's gonna be the first words out of the LEO's mouth?

    Next question: When you truthfully answer, can the LEO take it? Wouldn't this be an illegal/unconsented search?
    Last edited by mFonz77; 07-28-2010 at 04:48 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by mFonz77 View Post
    Agree with you there, but now that ANYONE could have a gun in ANY situation, wouldn't one logically presume that that's gonna be the first words out of the LEO's mouth?

    Next question: When you truthfully answer, can the LEO take it? Wouldn't this be an illegal/unconsented search?
    Possibly, it depends on the officer.

    Answer to second question:
    32 J. IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION
    33 OF A FIREARM, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY TAKE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE
    34 FIREARM FOR THE DURATION OF THAT CONTACT.

    (text here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1108s.pdf)

    Again, it's up to the officer and his/her comfort level with the person they are in contact with.

    INAL
    Last edited by March Hare; 07-28-2010 at 04:58 PM. Reason: Fixed line numbers from the PDF file.

  9. #9
    Regular Member mFonz77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    265
    Suppose we could get into all kinds of semantics here...

    For example, when I'm not going out to have a drink (aka when there are ZERO weapons in the car), there are usually at least two. So that means I can say "Yes sir Mr. Officer and here ya go" meanwhile my other gun is nice and safe somewhere else?

  10. #10
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by mFonz77 View Post
    Suppose we could get into all kinds of semantics here...

    For example, when I'm not going out to have a drink (aka when there are ZERO weapons in the car), there are usually at least two.
    So that means I can say "Yes sir Mr. Officer and here ya go" meanwhile my other gun is nice and safe somewhere else?
    I suppose you could, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is post what's in the ARS.
    The rest is up to each of us individually.

  11. #11
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by mFonz77 View Post
    So Fred, from the standpoint of someone like Handgunlaw.us, is this now going to make Arizona a "must inform" state?
    As March Hare pointed out it is "mustn't lie." During the sausage making, law enforcement wanted the same language as Alaska has with their no permit required law - anyone with a gun must run up to any cop they see and tell them they have a gun. Picture walking into a donut shop and seeing an entire shift of uniformed cops and screaming "I have a gun!" That was unacceptable.

    What dropped LE opposition was the "musn't lie" language that already exisits in Arizona law. During an official law enforcement interaction, if a cops asks if you have a gun, you must tell them.

    Fred

  12. #12
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post
    Picture walking into a donut shop and seeing an entire shift of uniformed cops and screaming "I have a gun!"
    *shudder*

  13. #13
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    Smashed dead by a federal judge today.
    Not so, despite what the liberal press is shouting. Arizona SB 1070 does go into effect tonight with a FEW PROVISIONS on hold due to Judge Bolton's injunction......

    click here for a BALANCED report on the issue.....

    http://www.foxnews.com/

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    Smashed dead by a federal judge today.
    Relates to O.C. how...?

    While I suspect our sentiments on this news would be most similar, it's way off topic for this forum. Unless I'm wrong....

  15. #15
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    No need to move to Arizona anymore. What was once the freest state in the union is, in one fell swoop from a Federal judge, just like all the others.
    My, aren't we grumpy!

    Just like the others?

    How's that concealed carry going for you there?
    In Arizona, open carry is so accepted that most people won't even raise an eyebrow when they see someone with a firearm.
    Concealed carry is now permitless (thank you, AZCDL).

    Since you think so little of our state, you can stay in Nevada. Enjoy.

    -MH
    Last edited by March Hare; 07-29-2010 at 10:41 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    Another genius rears his ugly head.
    Speakin' of ugly heads... how's *****-house Harry? 'Long time ago, I used to think NV was OK when I was stationed in Fallon. Now... not so much. Too much of a cross between CA and NY for influence. The 'faux news' comment is indicitive of that. We won't miss you in AZ... or the AZ forum for that matter. 'Bye!
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 07-29-2010 at 01:46 PM.

  17. #17
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    I think the real truth of the matter is that God is pisses off at America and he's in the process of kicking the living **** out of her.
    Geeez, go back inside and play the penny slots. Stop bothering us.

  18. #18
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    I have never and will never watch, let alone rely on, "news" from FAUX.

    And it is so... it is dead. As in, not coming back. You are almost as funny as the guy on this forum who said the Heathcare bill WILL BE repealed. You guys are a laugh a minute sometimes.

    No need to move to Arizona anymore. What was once the freest state in the union is, in one fell swoop from a Federal judge, just like all the others.
    Its not dead. Just delayed. I guess you don't know that 3 years ago, when Employer Sanctions was passed, it had a temporary injunction as well, then was upheld by the 9th.

    Go do your homework.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post

    No need to move to Arizona anymore. What was once the freest state in the union is, in one fell swoop from a Federal judge, just like all the others.
    Hmmm, I don't have to ask a sheriff for permission to get a concealed carry permit here in AZ. Heck, now I don't even need to get permission from anybody. But they're nice enough to keep the permits around so i can travel to other states and still CCW, including states like Texas where there's no open carry.

    Oh, wait, Nevada doesn't recognize Arizona's permit. And several cities don't allow any firearms, and there's no state preemption.

    So a federal judge said we have to keep putting up with illegal immigrants, I don't see how that makes us 'just like all the others' in regard to freedom.

  20. #20
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216
    Oh, wait, Nevada doesn't recognize Arizona's permit. And several cities don't allow any firearms, and there's no state preemption.

    IIRC, Nevada has total preemption, except for a few local ordinances from before the preemption law that were grandfathered in.

  21. #21
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by me812 View Post
    Oh, wait, Nevada doesn't recognize Arizona's permit. And several cities don't allow any firearms, and there's no state preemption.
    IIRC, Nevada has total preemption, except for a few local ordinances from before the preemption law that were grandfathered in.
    And Arizona just trumped that with HB 2543 which gets rid of all "grandfathered" and conflicting guns laws, and SB 1153 which establishes knife preemption.

    Add in Constitutional Carry which makes the permit optional while liberalizing the requirements (ala Florida) to get a permit, HB 2629 which prohibits local gun registration under the guise of temprorary storage, HB 2307 the Firearms Freedom Act, and HCR 2008 which proposes a constitutional right to hunt and fish, and I'd say we're moving in the right direction.

    Fred

  22. #22
    Regular Member Snakemathis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Prescott Valley, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    107

    Since this has nothing to do with OC...

    I will bring it back to topic. I too have some questions about constitutional carry. We all know that we no longer need permits and whatnot for CC. However, in what ways did this bill change the laws to either benefit or hurt OC? Are there now more ways for me to OC? Can I now keep my firearm on my belt in a car? How was all that affected by this bill?
    "Know firearms, know safety. No firearms, no safety"
    "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

  23. #23
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakemathis View Post
    I will bring it back to topic. I too have some questions about constitutional carry. We all know that we no longer need permits and whatnot for CC. However, in what ways did this bill change the laws to either benefit or hurt OC? Are there now more ways for me to OC? Can I now keep my firearm on my belt in a car? How was all that affected by this bill?
    Open Carry greatly benefits from the new lanugage. Gone is the language about belt holsters, etc., along with the vehicle carry lanugage. That also means that the 1994 Adams and Moerman decisions, which all but made open and vehicle carry illegal without a permit, no longer apply. So, if no one can see your openly carried gun it's not an issue. There is new language about open carry if you are between 18 and 21, but it's broader than the old langauge regarding holsters, etc.

    Fred

  24. #24
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by me812 View Post
    Oh, wait, Nevada doesn't recognize Arizona's permit. And several cities don't allow any firearms, and there's no state preemption.

    IIRC, Nevada has total preemption, except for a few local ordinances from before the preemption law that were grandfathered in.
    That will get you jacked up with a face plant in sections of Clark County... But, that sort'a thing keeps me 'n mine outta 'Vegas, so it's all good in the end. Legalized thuggery was never one of my things to experience.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    Arizona is "like all the others" in the sense that the Fed can tell y'all what to do and how to do it on a mere whim. Like they just did yesterday with your illegal immigration law -- that never was a law -- and that, to my mind, will never be a law.

    Just like all the others.

    It's not supposed to be that way.

    Like I said, you disagree, and that's fine. Enjoy.

    The only way to stop them now is by outright force. But that won't happen either because Americans have lost their country and are too weak and stupid and lazy and uncaring to stand up and take it back.
    Ahhh... a communique straight from the bunker. Take it over to Stormfront... 'jack.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •