Posted on 04/16/2010 3:58:22 PM PDT by JoeProBono
PHOENIX (AP) -- Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people without a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The bill she signed Friday afternoon takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends. That likely will put the effective date in July or August...
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
About time these laws got passed. We have a right to defend ourselves. That means acquiring any weapon we can acquire legally (without stealing from someone or otherwise infringing upon their rights).
How is a CPL not an infringement?
The scary people whom people worry about at night are carrying and have been carrying and don’t care about your CPL requirements. They probably couldn’t legally acquire a firearm in the first place, but they have them.
You know, Alaska has had this kind of law for some time - no problems.
Mental types, thugs and so on - they had guns before and still do, at least now I don;t have to worry about being busted for being at least as well armed the punk on the street.
Permits do not equal “safet” any more than doctors licenses mean a cure for your ills.
You still need a handgun permit. This new law only means that you don’t need a separate and special permit to carry it concealed.
You do not need a handgun “permit” to own a handgun in AZ.
Before this, anyone could open carry, just not concealed.
Now anyone will be able to conceal carry without any permit, just like Vermont and Alaska.
Wow! AZ, VT and AK sound better all the time.
<< It seems to me letting folks carry without a permit is close to anarchy. Do they prohibit convicted felons from owing and carrying? How about folks with mental problems? Requiring someone to go through the process required to obtain a permit allows some degree of control to weed out folks that really should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. >>
In Arizona, 100% of the law-abiding population has always had a Constitutional right to carry openly. Until a 1990 court decision, conclealed carry was also considered a Constitutionally protected right. Only 2% (about 150K) of the population has chosen to obtain a CCW permit since the permit system began in 1994. The rest carry openly.
Prohibited possessors (felons, etc.) have always been prohibited from carrying firearms, yet that never stopped them.
The new law only allows adults (21 and over) to carry concealed without a permit. The law also states that if you are carrying concealed in the furtherance of a crime you face a felony.
You can still get a permit in Arizona. They are good for bypassing the NICS check when purchasing a firearm, carrying out of state, and carrying where booze is sold.
<< The article fails to clearly state weather of not visitors will also be allowed concealed without a permit.>>
No distinction is made between residents and visitors. If you are an adult and not a prohbibited possessor, you can carry openly or discretely in Arizona without a permit when this law becomes effective.
Currently, Arizona recognizes ALL permits from ALL U.S. jurisdictions.
RIP Melanie.
Hopefully VT doesn’t...
They may have Constitutional Carry there too, but they also prohibit NFA firearms.
I used to think like you too. In fact, you could probably see me arguing the opposite in my posting history.
Someone convinced me otherwise though - if you are a convicted felon, you're in jail, right? After you leave jail, you've already paid your debt to society. Why do we feel it's right to deny those who already did their time their Constitutional rights?
According to your line of reasoning, why should a person have to get a driver’s license? A car is usually less dangerous than a hand gun and yet people must take a test and prove they are mature and sane enough to drive a car on the highway. To me, a CWP is more about educating a person about the rights and responsibilities of conceal carry rather than limiting their right to carry.
Unless you want to keep the permit for reciprocity if you travel. No permit is required is here for concealed carry in AK but some people get it anyway just for that reason.
I am the wrong person to take THAT tack with!
Unless engaged in Commercial driving, carrying passengers, such as a tour bus operator, we should not need a drivers licenses either.
The DL scheme is primarily about tax and control, safety is merely the excuse the public has been programmed to accept.
Out RIGHT to carry firearms, RIGHT to freely travel, RIGHT to petition the government, RIGHT to be secure in our possessions, RIGHT to vote, etc.
ALL of our RIGHTS are under attack from one faction or another, all are now constantly infringed.
Are you arguing that we should not be allowed to exercise any right without prior instruction and government approval, documented via a license?
Your letter to the editor (or post here) should only be allowed after you have passed a test and received a permit?
The class should include detailed scrutiny of your knowledge of word processing programs, sentence structure, spelling ability, libel laws, copyright, and your intent?
If you change your word processing program, or decide to use a typewriter, you should have to pass a new test?
This is what the Concealed Carry classes and permitting comes down to.
Despite media hysteria firearms are actually very simple devices, the basic safety rules are also very simple.
Very few people are going to carry a gun without having the ability to operate it, or an understanding of the basic tenets of self defense.
That a miniscule number of people MAY act foolishly is insufficient reason to deprive the majority of any RIGHT.
Lastly, cars are FAR more complex and dangerous to operate than firearms!
Do you worry every time another car approaches yours from the opposite direction?
Typical closing speeds exceed a hundred miles per hour, a crash would likely be fatal, yet you do this hundreds of times a day without a second thought.
Auto wrecks kill orders of magnitude more Americans than firearms misuse, despite those frequent test and licensing you support.
Loyal Sedition;
Sedition-an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government
Really? You sound like you are an anarchist. Tell me you are not.
When it comes to the recent actions of congress I am clearly in opposition, as are many here. Does that make me a criminal, or just reasonably aware?
The handle is "Loyal Sedition", I tend more toward constitutional original intent and a strict reading, which no doubt make me a criminal anarchist in the Oboma-commie's eyes.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256:
“The legitimate object of government is only “to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves … In all that, the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.” Abraham Lincoln.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague." - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator --- 106-43 B.C.
"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." - Ronald Reagan
Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin.
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." -- Charles A. Beard
If I am an anarchist, I am in good company!
Only time will tell if this was a good idea. If it turns out bad, it will only give Holder more ammo (no pun intended) to declare gun ownership a crisis and needed to be controlled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.