Open Carry in AZ - AzCDL trying to make it better

imported post

Yeah - It's a shamelss plug for the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL):
http://www.AzCDL.org.

One of our (AzCDL) goals is to restore the open carry rights here in AZ. In 1994, two court decisions screwed up vechicle carry and clouded open carry. They areState v. Moerman and State v. Adams. You can find them here:
( http://www.azcdl.org/html/educational.html )

If you want to help, you can join AzCDL or at least sign up for our Alerts (they're free) to keep you posted of legislative progress.

Fred

imported post

Could you give me some more details of what you mean by the court decision that "clouded open carry?" I understand how Adams could have screwed up OC while in a vehicle, but it seemed like you were implying that there had been problems with OC in general.

The best guess that I could come up with is that you believe that carrying a gun in a fanny-pack is OC, and therefore Moerman "clouded open carry?"

Personally I have never thought that fanny-pack carry could be considered OC. I don't have any problem with AzCDL trying to make it legal, I would just argue that it's a form of CC, not OC.

Anyway, keep up the good work and let us know how it's going. BTW, you should try and get more Arizonans on this forum. I know there are a lot of VCDL (Virginia) members on the VA page, and a few new TXCDL (Texas) members on the TX page; we would love to see more AzCDL members on the AZ page!

imported post

To clear the air on car carry in AZ, it might be best to go for the New Mexico rule - no restriction or license needed to carry a gun in vehicles, concelaed or openly.

As you can see from the OCDO Travelers' Map, 16 states allow at least some form of unlicensed concealed carry in vehicles, and 26 states totazl allow unlicensed open carry and/or concealed carry in vehicles (I'm counting CA in this mix, which is true in unincorporated areas, which are presumably most of the land area of CA).

imported post

Mike: I'd guess you're right that unincorporated areas comprise most of the land of California, but if very, very, few of California's people live in those areas, is that a reasonable standard for including it? What if less than 5% of California's population is covered? Or less?

imported post

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:

Mike: I'd guess you're right that unincorporated areas comprise most of the land of California, but if very, very, few of California's people live in those areas, is that a reasonable standard for including it? What if less than 5% of California's population is covered? Or less?

Click to expand...

I agree with you that including California without qualification in this metric is quibbling - that is why I qualified it - by including CA as a fractional open carry without permit in car state, we can claim 25 "and a butt" states - a majority, barely.

That is the talking point - "The majority rule across the states is that no permit is required to carry loaded handguns in vehicles."

But in CA, it might just be that in the unincoroprated areas that open carry without permit is quite valuable, especially since 911 calls are not likley to produce immediate response in the desert or mountains...

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

Could you give me some more details of what you mean by the court decision that "clouded open carry?" I understand how Adams could have screwed up OC while in a vehicle, but it seemed like you were implying that there had been problems with OC in general.

The best guess that I could come up with is that you believe that carrying a gun in a fanny-pack is OC, and therefore Moerman "clouded open carry?"

Personally I have never thought that fanny-pack carry could be considered OC. I don't have any problem with AzCDL trying to make it legal, I would just argue that it's a form of CC, not OC.

Anyway, keep up the good work and let us know how it's going. BTW, you should try and get more Arizonans on this forum. I know there are a lot of VCDL (Virginia) members on the VA page, and a few new TXCDL (Texas) members on the TX page; we would love to see more AzCDL members on the AZ page!

Click to expand...

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you Mike. Regarding open carry - too much depends on the eye of the observer, which in most cases is the LEO you encounter. First, there's the law, ARS 13-3102.F which says that you're not violating the lawwhen "a weapon or weapons carried in a belt holster which holster is wholly or partially visible......" The law limits you to a belt holster, and the holster, NOT THE WEAPON, must be wholly or partially visible. Technically an IWB, shoulder hoslter or stuffing the gun in your pants is a violation. Then, in 1994, along comes State v. Adams and State v. Moerman and now we're using terms like "obvious to a casual observer" - Check out page 21 of Michael Anthony'slegal paper that DPS usesat:
http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/procedures/CcwclassDPS2006.pdf

AzCDL's position is that between the wording of ARS 13-3102.F and the Adams and Moerman's decision is that those who open carry are at risk of "misconduct with a weapon" that is too dependent on the whim of those observing them. We prefer cleaner language in the law that does not require a belt holster or distinguish between the gun or the holster being visible - and that's what we're working towards. Our long term goal is that unless you're committing a crime, having a concelaed carry permit is irrevelant, regardless of how you carry.

As far as our visiblity on this (and others) forum - We're an all volunteer, non-profit group with a focus on lobbying. As much as we want, we can't be everywhere. The best way to get the latest from us is to go to our website:
http://www.AzCDL.org or subscribe to our Alerts:
http://www.azcdl.org/html/alerts.html
During the legsilative session (starting next month) we use the Alerts to keep you up to date on bills affecting your rights. during the legislative seesion, our focus is on getting good bills passed an bad bills killed - that means lots of time spent at the legislature, giving testimony in committee hearings, etc.

Fred