Arizona Laws

MI allows carry in municipal buildings, but AZ does not? Huh?

TOF said:

What part do you have a problem with?

I think our legislators have been doing a pretty good job regarding gun legislation. They have a ways to go but are going in the right direction.

Where are you from, California?

Click to expand...

Hello All,

Michigan here (on the gritty edge of Detroit ) -

My issue with Arizona Law is the restriction on carry in municipal buildings.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/po...o-allow-firearms-in-public-buildings-advances (Vetoed by Gov. Brewer)

AZ is vastly better in gun law than MI except for in this regard. We can carry in all State, local gov. buildings except for courts & jails. It's been this way for years. Guess what no armed mobs over taking city halls or police stations. It pains me that your state - which is often so far ahead of others is "so afraid" of the common people that they (state / local officials) strip someone of their right to self defense in "their" buildings??? I was pondering on this last month while I & 30 others sat armed in a city of Birmingham MI. commission/council meeting to show support for a young man who was falsely arrested & jailed for open carrying.

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...enthusiasts-protest-arrest-in-birmingham?lite

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

My issue with Arizona Law is the restriction on carry in municipal buildings.

Click to expand...

Join AzCDL and help us fight it

Fred

azcdlfred said:

Join AzCDL and help us fight it

Fred

Click to expand...

Fred - I look forward to becoming a member. I have family in Glendale, so I do have a dog in this fight. Not to mention a right denied to any law abiding citizen is a right denied to ALL law abiding citizens. We must stick together as there is great strength in numbers.

Regards,

- G9OS

MAC702 said:

Since you probably have it already at hand, can you post the relative Idaho laws? Are you saying they are similar but don't contain the duplicate Federal laws or diplomatic exemptions?

Click to expand...

I'll do ya one better, since there's a lot to read, here's the link to Title 18, Chapter 33 of the Idaho code:
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH33.htm

Also, SonoraRebel, I'd happily go back to Idaho if there was a job there for me. Arizona isn't bad but I have my complaints.

I like where clarkebar is going with this. Like him, I am an ID expat who can find work in AZ and would be happy to return if I could find work in ID.

I am a member of AzCDL and happy for the work they do.

I go a step further, I want to see all the laws eliminated over time for firearms except for the commission of a crime using them while we have this worthless and vile criminal justice system in AZ and Amerika. I hope eventually we will see that criminal law is vastly inferior to civil law in creating a peaceful society.

I also want to see AZ make all Federal laws within its borders void and null, to include firearms laws. A reverse preemption as it were that locks out all Federal tentacles at the border.

So, carry on, clarkebar.

Sonora Rebel said:

Some of these noobs who move down here would complicate soup. Be glad you can carry arms in self defense w/o permit and hassle. It's in the AZ State Constitution Art 2 Sec 26. 'Been that way since statehood. NFA 1934 banned full auto.

You can always go back to Idaho...

Click to expand...

..............and Famous Potatoes!!!

OK, I got a question, in the long thing the Poster put up there, it says

"8. "Prohibited weapon":

(a) Includes the following:

(i) An item that is a bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or mine and that is explosive, incendiary or poison gas.

(ii) A device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.

(iii) A firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

So, what does "(iii)" mean? I don't understand. What is a "A firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically"? and further what does "without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." mean? Does this mean "machine guns" are "prohibited weapons"? or does this mean that all "firearms" are "prohibited weapons"? Does this mean that the only "permissible weapons" are those that must be manually reloaded after every single shot? Therefore, all handguns are "prohibited weapons"??? I'm confused by this language.

aspenrebel said:

..............and Famous Potatoes!!!

OK, I got a question, in the long thing the Poster put up there, it says

"8. "Prohibited weapon":

(a) Includes the following:

(i) An item that is a bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or mine and that is explosive, incendiary or poison gas.

(ii) A device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.

(iii) A firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

So, what does "(iii)" mean? I don't understand. What is a "A firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically"? and further what does "without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." mean? Does this mean "machine guns" are "prohibited weapons"? or does this mean that all "firearms" are "prohibited weapons"? Does this mean that the only "permissible weapons" are those that must be manually reloaded after every single shot? Therefore, all handguns are "prohibited weapons"??? I'm confused by this language.

Click to expand...

It's referring to machine guns. I already quoted the NFA exception.

ETA ... more than one shot ..... by single function of the trigger. does that help?

clarkebar said:

Just for the record, by the way, I'm from Idaho. ;-)

Click to expand...

For those who don't know, Idaho (like most other states in the Mountain West) has much more permissive gun laws than Arizona, except for when it comes to the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit. Idaho's state-level prohibited possessor statute (unlike Arizona's) does not prohibit probationers, nor the mentally ill, from possessing firearms, provided they have not been convicted of any felony.

Idaho law also requires mens rea for the conviction of most felonies--something we did away with years ago here in Arizona, at the behest of vindictive, power-drunk prosecutors who are seeking absolute power for themselves at the expense of justice. Mens rea is definitely a 2A issue, as illustrated by the case of Margaret Vitale, convicted of a violent felony, and consequentially stripped of her constitutional rights for life, for an "assault" (I use that term advisedly) where the "victim" (again, I use that term advisedly) was not seriously injured, and had no interest in seeing her prosecuted:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/04/prosecutor-as-jihadist-andrew-thomas-vs.html

Idaho's gun laws are very much like Arizona's gun laws were twenty years ago, and I would gladly adopt them here, if it were within my power.

JMHO.

That's exactly what I meant to bring about when I started this thread. I think the vague nature of Idaho's laws, coupled with the precisely worded preemption, has a devastating effect on those who would seek to abuse power. I do think there's room for improvement, mainly the concealed weapons permit, but I think Arizona Residents have been lulled into believing they are in the clear. The fact is it is almost impossible to open carry anywhere inside of a metropolis in Arizona without the prospect of being harassed by law enforcement because of the con-jumbled nature of Arizona's laws regarding firearms. Specifically, I am referring to the law in Title 4 (I think) which makes it a crime for ANYONE to open carry into a bar! I think that's absolutely ludicrous. It should certainly be a crime to commit a crime with a firearm, and also while drunk, but that shouldn't prevent level headed folks from going about their business without fear of reprisal if they decide to dine at a Texas Roadhouse, for example.

Funny, I've been open carrying in Arizona for 13 years now and still have yet to be harassed for it.

JesseL said:

Funny, I've been open carrying in Arizona for 13 years now and still have yet to be harassed for it.

Click to expand...

Have you open carried into a restaurant or bar? Also, is Prescott a metropolis?

clarkebar said:

Have you open carried into a restaurant or bar? Also, is Prescott a metropolis?

Click to expand...

Yes, and legally speaking yes.

I've OC'd plenty around Phoenix too.

Have you? Or are you just speaking from your nethers?

I think we're seeing a bit of (perhaps unintentional) carpetbaggerism in this thread.

Even with the best intentions, I don't think anyone anywhere really appreciates it when someone moves to their area and immediately begins spouting off about how much better things were "back home" and all the things the locals are doing wrong.

It comes across as more than a bit arrogant and is practically guaranteed to rub people the wrong way.

Something to think about.

JesseL said:

I think we're seeing a bit of (perhaps unintentional) carpetbaggerism in this thread.

Even with the best intentions, I don't think anyone anywhere really appreciates it when someone moves to their area and immediately begins spouting off about how much better things were "back home" and all the things the locals are doing wrong.

It comes across as more than a bit arrogant and is practically guaranteed to rub people the wrong way.

Something to think about.

Click to expand...

If I were worried about what people think of me, I wouldn't open carry.

It doesn't matter to me if you feel insulted when someone tells you that some of the laws of the state you live in don't make sense. It's interesting to me though that you accuse me of never open carrying while you say you've done so in bars in Arizona when that's CLEARLY unlawful. A simple examination of Arizona's Statutes will reveal that truth. It seems to me that you're either lying, or live where local law enforcement disregards said statutes.

Either way, you should understand that I didn't start this thread to insult anyone, but I find that to be a small price to pay in order to get people to take action against an obvious problem.

Rather than engage in comparing states, how about focusing on improving and protecting the right to bear arms in Arizona?

The Legislative session is underway. Your rights are already under attack .

Doing nothing is the same as surrendering.

Fred