Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: Is this really okay with you?

  1. #1
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    Is this really okay with you?

    Okay, I think it's important to make some FACTS clear before I get started citing law and constitution... First of all, the rights which were detailed in several amendments to the United States Constitution were written to guarantee the representatives which make up the government entity would not be in a position to be giving permission to you, us, "the people," to do things which we were born capable of.
    There are, of course, certain things we must surrender in order to become a society, like our natural capability to take life, limb, or possessions from another human being for whatever reason we decide, i.e. no reason, because they had a relationship with your daughter, or because you don't like them. We gave up this natural executive power in order to remove passion from justice. This way when someone does you wrong your peers, hopefully, will see things your way and punish the offender. This is how we do things in a society. There are, however, natural abilities, called "natural rights" which have been bestowed upon us by God, Allah, the Creator, or, for my purposes here and elsewhere in political literature, NATURE.
    Notwithstanding this surrendering of your natural executive power, the founders of this country thought it wise to retain, in law, some of the natural rights of man to.... man. Man meaning YOU (man, woman, child, ...other). Two of these rights are markedly more important than all the others. Markedly more important by an order of MAGNITUDE I might add. These two rights are guaranteed to the people in two amendments to the United States Constitution in amendments two and four. I think I can safely assume most of the readers here are familiar with the former, however, upon reading many of the posts/responses in the Arizona section of OpenCarry.org, I have determined that many forum users who hail from this beloved state of theirs do not fully understand the ladder.
    Allow me to explain, but before I do (and I am NOT trying to insult anyone's intelligence) I think it is important to quote the 4th amendment in case anyone has forgotten what it says exactly.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    This amendment was, and is, meant to allow people who are not committing crimes to be secure in their persons and property. This is the executive power given to the judicial branch. What that means is this is the ONLY check the judges have over their street level officer counterparts which directly effects a street level situation while it is taking place. It is EXTRAORDINARILY important that this right be enforced in every conceivable way. Why? Well, to answer that question you'll have to do a bit more reading.

    Please keep in mind while you read the following laws that not every one applies to the fourth amendment issue but they are still very important, and very disturbing, because of how they are worded. Try to keep in mind that there are many ways to interpret words and some laws leave themselves open to interpretation which can misconstrue their original meaning. Also, don't forget what I said about the government isn't supposed to be giving permission...

    13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions
    A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

    1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
    (b) 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;

    6. Defacing a deadly weapon;

    10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01;

    11. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a deadly weapon;

    13. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying a deadly weapon on his person or within the immediate control of any person;

    K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact.

    M. For the purposes of this section:
    1. "Contacted by a law enforcement officer" means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense has been or is about to be committed.

    I don't think I really need to say much else... Except, I want to pose a few questions.

    What happened to fourth amendment rights?
    What happened to this:

    26. Bearing arms
    Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    Is it okay for an officer to charge you with a felony simply because you don't answer a question?
    Is it important that a police officer's "safety" be held above yours because you're honest?
    What is with Police being able to "take temporary custody of the firearm?"

    Are you really okay with this?




    Ask yourself these questions and please let me know what you think and why.

    Semper Fidelis.
    Last edited by clarkebar; 10-04-2011 at 03:55 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    That's a very elaborate way to ask a simple question. Fred from AZCDL has already stated they were unhappy wtih the inclusion of this in the law but are you happy with the permit requirement to conceal in Idaho? What about the capitol district exclusion zone in Boise, does that still exist?

    This was give and take, not an all or nothing.
    Last edited by sharkey; 10-04-2011 at 04:50 AM.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    That's a very elaborate way to ask a simple question. Fred from AZCDL has already stated they were unhappy wtih the inclusion of this in the law but are you happy with the permit requirement to conceal in Idaho? What about the capitol district exclusion zone in Boise, does that still exist?

    This was give and take, not an all or nothing.
    I am unhappy with the permit system in general, not just in Idaho. No, the capitol district exclusion does not still exist. It was unconstitutional per the state constitution. Idaho's state constitution does not allow for the state to regulate open carry whatsoever.

  5. #5
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    I understand there's a process to getting closer to a goal in the legislative process but that is not the only way to achieve one.
    Last edited by clarkebar; 10-04-2011 at 05:14 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    'K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact.'

    We have a dynamic here unlike the more populous regions of the country. 'Distance /Isolation'. There are long distances between anywhere to anywhere over much of Arizona. If a situation goes south between a LEO and the person being 'detained' as some like to call it, back-up is going to take awhile to respond.

    The operative word in the above is 'MAY'. That's a discretionary action. We have a lot of smugglers here... many of whom would face long terms in the cross bar hotel if discovered, or possibly death to themselves/families at the hands of their employers if they lose a shipment. That's not an exaggeration.

    Obviously... it seems reasonable and prudent to disarm those who 'may' be potentially engaged in such businesss while the LEO conducts their preliminary investigation and renders them neutral for the duration of the 'technical arrest'. This may include restraints (cuffs) for that duration. Much of this is predicated upon the initial attitude/demeanor of the person detained. You may know you're not a bad guy, but the LEO doesn't know anything more about you than what's on your license when they 'run it'.

    Yeah... we're all well aware of the 4A, but a detention is technical arrest... not a request. It's never a good idea to tell a LEO what they're 'not going to do' or any other combative utterance. That's a red flag.

    Personally, I think 'K" is a reasonable precaution given the dynamic of the area. This same dynamic has determined a culture of bearing arms since annexation in 1848 & ratified Constitutionally in 1912. In my unincorporated area... The Sheriff will advise all noobs: 'If you do not own a firearm... get one'. They cannot protect you. The response time is too great. There's something like 6 deputies per shift covering 156 sq miles in this Division. Cops are different here.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 10-04-2011 at 10:56 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    From a anti-2A point of view: Personally, I think 'restricting the carry of a firearm to long guns' is a reasonable precaution given the dynamic of the area.
    'A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something.' ~ Plato.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210
    I'm happy with the current state of affairs because it's miles better than it was a few years ago, and I'm confident that it will continue improving. I'm not going to fall into the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    The operative word in the above is 'MAY'. That's a discretionary action. We have a lot of smugglers here... many of whom would face long terms in the cross bar hotel if discovered, or possibly death to themselves/families at the hands of their employers if they lose a shipment. That's not an exaggeration.

    Obviously... it seems reasonable and prudent to disarm those who 'may' be potentially engaged in such businesss while the LEO conducts their preliminary investigation and renders them neutral for the duration of the 'technical arrest'. This may include restraints (cuffs) for that duration. Much of this is predicated upon the initial attitude/demeanor of the person detained. You may know you're not a bad guy, but the LEO doesn't know anything more about you than what's on your license when they 'run it'.
    So you're good with that? You're OK with an Officer in your area assuming that you're a smuggler and stops you for no other reason, taking your weapon "for his safety"?

    IIRC, Probable cause, or at LEAST he must have RAS to detain you, put you in cuffs, secure your weapon...But if YOU'RE Ok with that..

  10. #10
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    So you're good with that? You're OK with an Officer in your area assuming that you're a smuggler and stops you for no other reason, taking your weapon "for his safety"?

    IIRC, Probable cause, or at LEAST he must have RAS to detain you, put you in cuffs, secure your weapon...But if YOU'RE Ok with that..
    I'm happy to see I'm not the only one. It's ridiculous for a police officer to have a law on their side which allows them to even potentially violate your rights. The officer should assume that everyone they meet is armed. They should also prepare for the worst possible situation. Both of these things must be done while they treat everyone they meet with the respect they would give their grandmother. Laws like K allow Police Officers room to become complacent because they think they'll be able to disarm whoever they encounter. This is simply not true because if I were a coyote/smuggler/criminal facing a long sentence I wouldn't declare that I had a firearm AT ALL! What then? How's the cop going to protect himself? It doesn't make sense to make a law that allows the Police to trample on law abiding people while the criminals are simply going to ignore it. It's a stupid idea whether you're from Arizona or not.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    So you're good with that? You're OK with an Officer in your area assuming that you're a smuggler and stops you for no other reason, taking your weapon "for his safety"?

    IIRC, Probable cause, or at LEAST he must have RAS to detain you, put you in cuffs, secure your weapon...But if YOU'RE Ok with that..
    You've answered you own scenario. That is RAS. ... not only his safety but yours. Man.... you armchair academics really DO NOT comprehend actuality. Yeah... I'm good with that. I understand that. It's an extenuating circumstance I can live with... and more cops will live because of.

    There's a whole bunch of you keyboard konsitutionalists who don't like cops. You don't like authority. Some of you would welcome anarchy. Not everyone who posts here is truthful or even sane, so don't assume that all is sweetness and light. I wonder why this wrankles anybody as much as it seems to, when there much bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

    Doubtful that any of you take on the anti's in local newpaper forums like I do and have done for years. This... in areas where the mere presence of a gun will get your face planted in the asphalt 'n a trip to the hoosegow. You won't get your gun back either. Want'a talk 'Constitutional' in that arena?

    In conclusion... those of you who are not 'Zonies or have never traveled any distance here have zero appreciation for 'remote'. The law applies to the entire state, not just the paved parts. Off-pavement is a whole 'nuther world most of you will never see.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    210
    So clarkebar and OC for ME, where exactly are you trying to go with this discussion?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    'K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact.'

    We have a dynamic here unlike the more populous regions of the country. 'Distance /Isolation'. There are long distances between anywhere to anywhere over much of Arizona. If a situation goes south between a LEO and the person being 'detained' as some like to call it, back-up is going to take awhile to respond.

    The operative word in the above is 'MAY'. That's a discretionary action. We have a lot of smugglers here... many of whom would face long terms in the cross bar hotel if discovered, or possibly death to themselves/families at the hands of their employers if they lose a shipment. That's not an exaggeration.

    Obviously... it seems reasonable and prudent to disarm those who 'may' be potentially engaged in such businesss while the LEO conducts their preliminary investigation and renders them neutral for the duration of the 'technical arrest'. This may include restraints (cuffs) for that duration. Much of this is predicated upon the initial attitude/demeanor of the person detained. You may know you're not a bad guy, but the LEO doesn't know anything more about you than what's on your license when they 'run it'.

    Yeah... we're all well aware of the 4A, but a detention is technical arrest... not a request. It's never a good idea to tell a LEO what they're 'not going to do' or any other combative utterance. That's a red flag.

    Personally, I think 'K" is a reasonable precaution given the dynamic of the area. This same dynamic has determined a culture of bearing arms since annexation in 1848 & ratified Constitutionally in 1912. In my unincorporated area... The Sheriff will advise all noobs: 'If you do not own a firearm... get one'. They cannot protect you. The response time is too great. There's something like 6 deputies per shift covering 156 sq miles in this Division. Cops are different here.
    "K" is unnecessary. Terry still applies to the specifics you describe. If K were not codified law, LE still have the avenue available through SCOTUS decision in Terry v Ohio, and supported by SCOTUS decision in AZ v Johnson.

    Given your hypothetical "far from backup," LE can still gain possession of a firearm carried by someone who they determine to be "armed and dangerous," until their on-scene investigation reverses that presumption, which is based upon RAS. Absent RAS, no contact would have happened anyway, right?


    You can give over your sidearm freely to LE during a traffic stop if you desire. That does NOT make it "right" to codify it against the rest of the people who get stopped in AZ.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    So you're good with that? You're OK with an Officer in your area assuming that you're a smuggler and stops you for no other reason, taking your weapon "for his safety"?

    IIRC, Probable cause, or at LEAST he must have RAS to detain you, put you in cuffs, secure your weapon...But if YOU'RE Ok with that..
    He is a former LE, and has already stated that he will voluntarily disarm. Of course he is 'good with that.' He doesn't care about everyone else, as long as he is okay with the regulations and/or restrictions.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Good one.



    xd shooter - actually, SR prefers to be disarmed for officer safety, but will not disarm for anyone else's safety.

    Ya ever try to get a cop to show up when you need one in less than 30 minutes in NYC?
    Or, ever try to get a cop to disarm for citizen safety during a stop........
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    You've answered you own scenario. That is RAS. ... not only his safety but yours. Man.... you armchair academics really DO NOT comprehend actuality. Yeah... I'm good with that. I understand that. It's an extenuating circumstance I can live with... and more cops will live because of.
    No, that is the mindset of a person. Unless the LE knows that person IS a smuggler, it isn't relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel
    There's a whole bunch of you keyboard konsitutionalists who don't like cops. You don't like authority. Some of you would welcome anarchy. Not everyone who posts here is truthful or even sane, so don't assume that all is sweetness and light. I wonder why this wrankles anybody as much as it seems to, when there much bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

    Doubtful that any of you take on the anti's in local newpaper forums like I do and have done for years. This... in areas where the mere presence of a gun will get your face planted in the asphalt 'n a trip to the hoosegow. You won't get your gun back either. Want'a talk 'Constitutional' in that arena?
    I frankly do not see anti's in the local paper. Maybe you need to move?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel
    In conclusion... those of you who are not 'Zonies or have never traveled any distance here have zero appreciation for 'remote'. The law applies to the entire state, not just the paved parts. Off-pavement is a whole 'nuther world most of you will never see.
    You must never visit nevada. And, the law applies to the entire state, not just the remote parts. On-pavement is a whole nuther world that you must be unfamiliar with.


    In conclusion, it isn't about how remote YOU live, nor about how YOU would voluntarily hand over YOUR sidearm. it is beyond what you experience, or what I experience. There ARE other actual persons that such laws impact, such as the OP of that other thread. Maybe it is time you actually consider that the views that others present MAY have some validity, in areas of your own state that are NOT as remote as where you seem to be from. Ever been to Tucson or Phoenix? I have. Not very remote, nor can backup be that far away.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by JesseL View Post
    So clarkebar and OC for ME, where exactly are you trying to go with this discussion?
    I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, I just think it's important to debate.

  18. #18
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    ...What about the capitol district exclusion zone in Boise, does that still exist?...
    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    ...No, the capitol district exclusion does not still exist. It was unconstitutional per the state constitution...
    The EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2004-07

    was last signed by GOVERNOR DIRK KEMPTHORNE 22 Oct 2004

    Each such executive order issued by the governor...shall cease to be effective four (4) calendar years from the issuance thereof.

    It has expired.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    Are you really okay with this?
    You pose that question as if us Arizonans that are 'in the know' about firearms and firearms laws are complacently sitting around, twirling our thumbs, completely uninterested in getting rid of these stupid laws. Fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. I vote. I donate to groups that support the Second Amendment. I OC/CC. I refuse to give my business to stores that are "gun-free zones." I write letters to businesses that don't allow firearms and have actually been successful at personally getting one to reverse their stance and take down their sign. Etc.

    Your implications are ridiculous, and frankly, extremely insulting to those of us who work hard to make Arizona a state of firearm ownership perfection. As has been said by Azcdlfred, you have to take some bad to get some good. Not that long ago, CC was illegal in AZ. Then came the permit system, then Constitutional Carry. The progress made in the past 20 years or so is incredible, and over time these small nuisances will be eliminated. Have faith in your brothers and sister in Arizona instead of preaching and talking down to them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You are correct, I don't take a cotton to authority, that is misused. I respect authority right up to the point that authority loses my respect.

    It is quite comical to watch a LEO have his own tricks used on him and the subsequent deterioration of his position, and his realization that he has initiated a journey into a legal mine field. This is typically where a LEO makes one of two monumental decisions, accept the inevitable and just let it go, if no law was actually broken or it is an infraction as was the OP. Or make that smart-a$$ civilian 'respect his authority'.

    I find it odd that any LEO would rather have his boss and /or a judge tell him the very thing that a LAC, on the side of the road told him. Likely the OP'er had a relatively high regard for the LE community, and specifically his local LEOs. That regard is likely somewhat degraded now and that loss of respect was not initiated by the OP'er.

    Demanding respect via the power of the state rarely garners little if any respect.

    Your oblique references to 'face plants' and such by LEOs as the result of not 'respect-in' their authority, just may, as you infer, get you proned out with a .40 nudged up close to the back of your head, whether or not the citizen legally warrants a .40 nudged up close to the back of his head. You continue to 'hint' that you are somewhat familiar with 'get-in respect' from citizens.
    God damn...what on Earth have you done in your life that has earned you the kind of contact with LE to warrant such a dislike for them? LOL
    Or maybe you just watch a lot of movies?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    He is a former LE, and has already stated that he will voluntarily disarm. Of course he is 'good with that.' He doesn't care about everyone else, as long as he is okay with the regulations and/or restrictions.
    Well thank you, Captain Obvious (or Oblivious), for your insightful input. Everyone has their limit and is okay with certain regulations and/or restrictions. That's kind of why we uh, you know, vote, so that (usually) the majority of people who concur on something get their way. What you find acceptable, I may not, and 'visa versa.'

  22. #22
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    You must never visit nevada.
    :::Sarcasm Deactivated:::

    Do you know if my AZ CCW permit is good at the strip? My understanding is that Nevada does not have strong pre-emption laws and local ordinances can ban firearm carry.

    Thanks in advance.

    :::Sarcasm Activated:::

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    You pose that question as if us Arizonans that are 'in the know' about firearms and firearms laws are complacently sitting around, twirling our thumbs, completely uninterested in getting rid of these stupid laws. Fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. I vote. I donate to groups that support the Second Amendment. I OC/CC. I refuse to give my business to stores that are "gun-free zones." I write letters to businesses that don't allow firearms and have actually been successful at personally getting one to reverse their stance and take down their sign. Etc.

    Your implications are ridiculous, and frankly, extremely insulting to those of us who work hard to make Arizona a state of firearm ownership perfection. As has been said by Azcdlfred, you have to take some bad to get some good. Not that long ago, CC was illegal in AZ. Then came the permit system, then Constitutional Carry. The progress made in the past 20 years or so is incredible, and over time these small nuisances will be eliminated. Have faith in your brothers and sister in Arizona instead of preaching and talking down to them.
    Yet his implications are NOT ridiculous for all those posting in the AZ forum. Some have expressed dislike for that specific law. Others have expressed agreement with that specific law.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    Well thank you, Captain Obvious (or Oblivious), for your insightful input. Everyone has their limit and is okay with certain regulations and/or restrictions. That's kind of why we uh, you know, vote, so that (usually) the majority of people who concur on something get their way. What you find acceptable, I may not, and 'visa versa.'
    Wow, you sure do "chip on shoulder" a lot.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    :::Sarcasm Deactivated:::

    Do you know if my AZ CCW permit is good at the strip? My understanding is that Nevada does not have strong pre-emption laws and local ordinances can ban firearm carry.

    Thanks in advance.

    :::Sarcasm Activated:::
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Pages/CCW_FAQ.php
    An Arizona permit is valid in Nevada, as of 01 July 2011.


    I am quite certain of the information there, as I am the one who actually inputs what we receive and review.

    As to the "strong pre-emption," you are entirely correct, but no NEW ordinances can ban firearm carry, only what was in place prior to a certain date(preepmtion for 'on or after June 13, 1989'). SB-92 of the 07 session tried to get "before" added, but while that wording is in statute, discussion continues as to if it preempts ALL ordinances or not....
    It makes the "K" statute seem simple in comparison.


    . OC as well as CC are lawful on the strip, afaik.

    The specific statute governing preemption is quite "muddy," to say the least, and so far, attempts to clean it up have met with much resistance from Clark County / Las Vegas (LE / govt). North Las Vegas appears to have the most onerous of regulations, but at least the Clark County registration was forced to have 72 hours and 60 day grace periods.
    Last edited by wrightme; 10-04-2011 at 06:18 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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
  •