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?

DustoneGT said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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

mFonz77 said:

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

Click to expand...

I think this is more like a 'mustn't lie to the officer if asked' state.

March Hare said:

I think this is more like a 'mustn't lie to the cop if asked' state.

Click to expand...

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?

mFonz77 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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?

mFonz77 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

mFonz77 said:

So Fred, from the standpoint of someone like Handgunlaw.us, is this now going to make Arizona a "must inform" state?

Click to expand...

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

azcdlfred said:

Picture walking into a donut shop and seeing an entire shift of uniformed cops and screaming "I have a gun!"

Click to expand...

*shudder*

Mudjack said:

Smashed dead by a federal judge today.

Click to expand...

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/

Mudjack said:

Smashed dead by a federal judge today.

Click to expand...

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....

The name of the thread is...

"Some SB1108 questions", it was my mistake. But as long as we're at it anyway...

GWbiker said:

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/

Click to expand...

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.

Mudjack said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Lol!

Another genius rears his ugly head.

Mudjack said:

Another genius rears his ugly head.

Click to expand...

Speakin' of ugly heads... how's whore-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!

OMG! And another...

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.