PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s loose gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried an AR-15 rifle to a protest outside a speech by President Barack Obama.
Now, gun-rights advocates are hoping for even fewer restrictions on where they can have a firearm. Among their top goals, they hope to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, which would eliminate background checks and training classes for people to carry hidden guns.
“That’s sheer insanity,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.”
But supporters say criminals will carry concealed weapons regardless of the law, so gun restrictions only affect law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.
“All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families,” said state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican sponsoring the bill.
Pearce’s bill comes a year after Arizona eased restrictions on gun owners, most notably the option to carry a weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol unless the establishment has banned firearms.
It also comes amid a national trend of states loosening gun laws. In 2009, states passed 47 new laws easing restrictions, more than three times the number of new laws tightening them. Forty-eight states allow people to carry a concealed weapon; all but Alaska and Vermont require a permit, which is generally denied to people with a criminal history or mental illness.
In Arizona, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a misdemeanor. Pearce’s bill, and an identical one in the House, would make the permit and background check optional. It also would eliminate a required firearms safety class for permit seekers.
“It doesn’t make much sense why someone would have to go through a background check, training, etc. simply to carry their weapon,” said John Wentling, vice president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights lobby group that is promoting the bill.
Police departments worry that making permits optional might encourage more people with nefarious motives to carry concealed weapons, said John Thomas, a lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. It also could lead to more accidental gun discharges by people not adequately trained in firearm safety, Thomas said.
“I’m not aware of any law enforcement agency or association that supports this bill as introduced,” he said.
House and Senate committees were scheduled to hear the bill last week, but the sponsors pulled it to try and address some of the concerns of law enforcement. A similar measure failed last year amid strong opposition from police agencies.
There would still be an advantage to obtaining a permit; carrying a gun into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol would require one, and the permit would be valid in 31 states that have reciprocity agreements with Arizona. Permit holders also can buy new guns without a background check.
In all, Arizona lawmakers have introduced about a half-dozen bills aimed at loosening gun laws, including one making it legal to carry a gun in a public park without a concealed-weapons permit. Another would allow college faculty with permits to carry a gun on campus.
The gun-rights bills follow a string of new, less-restrictive gun laws passed last year. They were made possible by the elevation of Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to replace Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who vetoed attempts to loosen gun laws until she resigned a year ago to join the Obama administration.
Brewer last year signed the bill allowing guns in bars; Napolitano vetoed a similar measure four years earlier.
Brewer also approved a law allowing gun owners to display a firearm if they feel threatened and another allowing them to keep guns in their locked vehicles while parked at businesses that ban weapons.
What’s coming next year is still unknown, said Wentling, the gun-rights lobbyist. But he’s not done yet.
“We’ll be there next year and the year after and the year after,” Wentling said. “There will always be some work to do.”
___
i wrote an article about this very issue last year sometime. Gun toting liberals should not be entitled to positions of power where they can affect such measures. What in the hell is Jan Brewer thinking? it’s true that people can buy firearms at gun shows without a background check, but for gosh sakes, don’t make the whole state of Arizona a big old gun show. You’ll have half the criminals in the U.S. down there buying weapons and toting them home to their arsenals. I believe a criminal records search should be mandated for every single person who even looks at a gun.
I’m done now, you may proceed.
I am curious; are any opponents of the proposed measure able to demonstrate that a lack of a permit requirement for the carrying of concealed deadly weapons has resulted in detrimental consequence, or is this expressed concern like many other expressed concerns of civilian disarmament advocates: devoid of rationality and honesty?
Are civilian disarmament advocates able to demonstrate that a the imposition of a requirement for obtaining a permit prior to carrying a concealed deadly weapon would be beneficial in the state of Vermont, where no such permit is currently required for such an action?
I should note also that the Violence Policy Center openly acknowledges reliance upon public “confusion” as a means of attaining support for unreasonable firearms restrictions. Josh Sugarmann, a representative of the organization, authored a document in which he acknowledged that the public’s misunderstanding of a firearm topic would prove useful in advocating for the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on a rarely criminally misused class of firearm. Because the organization openly relies upon disingenuous tactics, they should not be considered to be a credible source of information.
Well, monsieur Dimensio, I assume you are talking about hand guns. Examples abound of why control on concealed weapons shouldn’t be loosened. Am I wrong to point out the shootings at Schools and Universities that past years? They included mostly hand guns as well as shotguns, etc. And of course I have to insert the usual lines about gang violence.
Speaking of hand guns. Just recently there were two shootings at apartment complexes in town, both related to drugs.
I see where you are coming from and I am not worried about “normal” people carrying concealed weapons. My only problem is that we are backtracking to the times of the Old West, and that the one nut job in the whole town will decide he has a chip on his shoulder and take it out on everyone else. Background Checks are supposed to weed people like that out, and I point you to a great example of this that I recently wrote about http://www.criminalrecordssearch.us/242/criminal-records-search-breaks-cold.
This is an example of the system working the way it’s supposed to. Granted it wasn’t a hand gun he wanted to purchase, but it could very well have been.
“Well, monsieur Dimensio, I assume you are talking about hand guns. Examples abound of why control on concealed weapons shouldn’t be loosened. Am I wrong to point out the shootings at Schools and Universities that past years? They included mostly hand guns as well as shotguns, etc. And of course I have to insert the usual lines about gang violence.”
Then you should be able to reference such incidents that have occurred in the states of Vermont and Alaska and demonstrate that the incidents likely would not have occurred had the states restricted the act of carrying a concealed deadly weapon to civilians legally permitted to do so via a “shall issue” permit system.
“Speaking of hand guns. Just recently there were two shootings at apartment complexes in town, both related to drugs.”
To which “town” do you refer? Please explain how this shooting would have been averted through the existence of a “shall issue”-based concealed deadly weapons permit.
“I see where you are coming from and I am not worried about “normal” people carrying concealed weapons.”
Then it would appear as though your concerns are unfounded.
“My only problem is that we are backtracking to the times of the Old West, and that the one nut job in the whole town will decide he has a chip on his shoulder and take it out on everyone else.”
Then you should be able to demonstrate that such incidents have occurred, with frequency greater than that of the United States as a whole, in the states of Vermont and Alaska. Please do so.
“Background Checks are supposed to weed people like that out, and I point you to a great example of this that I recently wrote about http://www.criminalrecordssearch.us/242/criminal-records-search-breaks-cold.
This is an example of the system working the way it’s supposed to. Granted it wasn’t a hand gun he wanted to purchase, but it could very well have been.”
The purchase of a firearm from a federally licensed seller requires that the buyer be subjected to a criminal background investigation. This requirement is established by federal law, and would not be affected by the proposed alteration of Arizona legislation. Individuals legally prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms by federal law would remain in such a position even if the proposed alteration to Arizona law is made manifest in reality. I do not understand how this relates to your evident objection to the referenced proposal.
I am talking about the general idea of this proposal and the direction of gun control as a whole. We could throw technicalities back and forth for weeks on end, but the fact remains that it’s becoming easier than ever to acquire a gun.
I believe proponents who ask for specific examples to the contra in such a discussion are merely trying to evade the larger issue and use technical details and specificity to support the their own ideals and the movement toward lesser gun control.
It’s also funny that folks who clamor for less gun control don’t have to give concrete examples and consequences of any kind except to say that “they are doing it as well” and “it seems to be working”. The conservatives however are always being asked to base their claims on absolute facts and past occurrences and may not allude to the consequences of lesser gun control, or for that matter, practically any other movement that has mass appeal.
Of course, while no earth shattering event takes place in states where such measures are in place, other states will continue to adopt them as well. It’s like cancer, while the going is good, we have no idea what’s happening to us. When we finally start to feel the effects, it’s often far too late to do anything about it.
The town I am talking about is Rochester, MN and the shootings were related to drugs. Of course it’s debatable if such measures would have had any effect what-so-ever on whether the shootings would have taken place. But surely you see that with such a measure in place, a drug dealer could legally carry a concealed weapon to the next rendezvous point.
Of course the counter argument to that would be, “But supporters say criminals will carry concealed weapons regardless of the law, so gun restrictions only affect law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.”
Should we no longer require licenses for driving? After all, many people drive without a license and all we are doing is affecting law abiding citizens who want to legally drive a car. I’m sure that for some time, while such a measure would only be implemented in a few places, the outlook would be great for supporters. But obviously in the long term the consequences would be disastrous.
Such an obvious example is easy to see by most, but obviously gun control isn’t such an obvious example. Somebody has to get shot in order for people to realize what’s going on.
Why would you legalize carrying a concealed weapon into a bar? Even with a permit and the exception of bars that prohibit this? All one does with these laws is lay the foundation for the legal, openly displayed carrying of deadly weapons.
“I am talking about the general idea of this proposal and the direction of gun control as a whole.”
Legislative ideas should be promoted or rejected based upon their specific merit, not merely based upon a general “direction” of possibly related ideas.
” We could throw technicalities back and forth for weeks on end, but the fact remains that it’s becoming easier than ever to acquire a gun.”
Please explain and justify this assertion. Identify federal requirements for firearms possession that have been significantly altered so as to be less restrictive in recent years or months.
“I believe proponents who ask for specific examples to the contra in such a discussion are merely trying to evade the larger issue and use technical details and specificity to support the their own ideals and the movement toward lesser gun control.”
I am attempting to ascertain a rational justification for opposition to a specific proposed measure. I am attempting to “evade” nothing; suggesting that objections to a proposal may only be addressed in generalities suggests, to me, that the objections are insubstantial and ultimately unjustified.
“It’s also funny that folks who clamor for less gun control don’t have to give concrete examples and consequences of any kind except to say that “they are doing it as well” and “it seems to be working”.”
This is because it is the imposition of restriction, and not the allowance of liberty, that must ultimately be justified as necessary.
“The conservatives however are always being asked to base their claims on absolute facts and past occurrences and may not allude to the consequences of lesser gun control, or for that matter, practically any other movement that has mass appeal.”
If no evidence exists that the relaxation of an extant restriction will produce predicted dire consequence, then there exists no reason to trust those predictions.
“Of course, while no earth shattering event takes place in states where such measures are in place, other states will continue to adopt them as well. It’s like cancer, while the going is good, we have no idea what’s happening to us. When we finally start to feel the effects, it’s often far too late to do anything about it.”
Your analogy implies that a relaxation of restrictions regarding firearm possession is analogous to cancer; however, you have not yet justified this analogy. Merely predicting the occurrence of dire consequence is not logically equivalent to demonstrating that dire consequence will occur.
“The town I am talking about is Rochester, MN and the shootings were related to drugs. Of course it’s debatable if such measures would have had any effect what-so-ever on whether the shootings would have taken place.”
You have not even demonstrated that the shooter legally possessed a firearm, or if the mere act of possessing a firearm was itself a criminal act at the time.
“But surely you see that with such a measure in place, a drug dealer could legally carry a concealed weapon to the next rendezvous point.”
For what reason do you believe that a “drug dealer”, an individual who has already demonstrated a willingness to violate both state and federal law, would be concerned regarding the legality of carrying a concealed deadly weapon? Additionally, how frequently do you believe that “drug dealer” individuals legally possess firearms?
“Of course the counter argument to that would be, “But supporters say criminals will carry concealed weapons regardless of the law, so gun restrictions only affect law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.””
You are correct; you have stated a valid counter-argument.
“Should we no longer require licenses for driving? After all, many people drive without a license and all we are doing is affecting law abiding citizens who want to legally drive a car.”
A driving licensing system exists, in practice, to verify that individuals who operate motor vehicles on public roads have been tested regarding operational procedures and safety measures regarding the usage of a motor vehicle. Because licensing procedures require direct testing, they serve to verify that individuals are legally licensed only to drive after they have demonstrated competence in operating a motor vehicle.
“I’m sure that for some time, while such a measure would only be implemented in a few places, the outlook would be great for supporters. But obviously in the long term the consequences would be disastrous.”
Declaring that your position is “obvious” is not logically equivalent to demonstrating that your position is factually accurate. You have neither demonstrated that even a limited implementation of the measure that you have hypothesized would created a “great outlook”, nor have you demonstrated “disastrous consequences” of implementing such a measure over a great deal of time.
“Such an obvious example is easy to see by most, but obviously gun control isn’t such an obvious example. Somebody has to get shot in order for people to realize what’s going on. ”
Positing an unjustified analogy predicated upon unsubstantiated conclusions does not constitute a logical validation of your position.
“Why would you legalize carrying a concealed weapon into a bar?”
This is not a valid inquiry. The burden is upon those who seek to criminalize an action to justify such restriction. If valid justification can be provided for criminalizing the carrying of deadly weapons in establishments where alcohol is served for consumption on the premises, then the measure should be enacted; if no such justification can be stated, then such a measure should not be enacted and any such measure currently extant should be repealed. Given that a number of states currently do not criminalize such an action, it should be trivial to derive a justification based upon events in those states, if such a justification can be stated.
Even with a permit and the exception of bars that prohibit this? All one does with these laws is lay the foundation for the legal, openly displayed carrying of deadly weapons.”
“Even with a permit and the exception of bars that prohibit this? All one does with these laws is lay the foundation for the legal, openly displayed carrying of deadly weapons.”
Such action is not legally prohibited in many states, including in the state of Arizona. I have, thus far, observed no rational justification for the prohibition of the openly displayed carrying of a deadly weapon.
“Even with a permit and the exception of bars that prohibit this? All one does with these laws is lay the foundation for the legal, openly displayed carrying of deadly weapons.”
“Such action is not legally prohibited in many states, including in the state of Arizona. I have, thus far, observed no rational justification for the prohibition of the openly displayed carrying of a deadly weapon.”
Well, Dimensio, it’s pretty tough arguing with someone who has the kind of logic you do, or rather the kind of logic you display here. I suppose the background check system had better be beefed up so I can check up on all the folks who will be acquiring weapons.
This is silly. There is no data to inidcate that letting anyone who wants to, can carry a submachinegun is a bad idea either, but I would like to think that everyone here has the sense to see that such a prospect would be madness.
Common sense should tell us that allowing the purchase of handguns without a background check is equally insane. You’re really okay with convicted felons (that means murderers too), rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, mentally ill, and illegal aliens (with fake ID) going into a gun store and purchasing a handgun? Then carrying it concealed?
Loser gun laws do not equate to lower gun crime. As a matter of fact, as far as Arizona is concerned it is just the opposite. Arizona has the fourth highest gun crime rate in the country—ahead of California, and way, way ahead of New York.
So it stands to reason that if you further loosen gun laws you will see an increase in gun crimes, just as certainly as jumping off the rim of the Grand Canyon is bad for your health.