Arizona No Long Requires A Permit To Carry A Concealed Gun in Public

[Crazed Rabbit]

Huzzah!

PHOENIX – Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.

The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts the effective date in July or August.

"I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well," Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement.

Alaska and Vermont now do not require permits to carry concealed weapons.

By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

Supporters say the bill promotes constitutional rights and allows people to protect themselves from criminals, while critics worry it will lead to more shootings as people with less training have fewer restrictions on carrying weapons.

Some police officials are concerned the law will lead to more accidental gun discharges from people untrained in firearm safety, or that shooters in stressful situations will accidentally strike innocent bystanders with stray bullets.

"I know a lot of 21-year-olds; the maturity level is gravely concerning sometimes," said El Mirage Police Chief Mike Frazier, an Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police board member. "If you're going to be carrying a weapon you should know what the law is and how to use it."

However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

One of the most victorious campaigns for gun rights in America has been the passing of laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons. 30 years ago only a handful of states allowed concealed carry even with a permit. Now only two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, don't allow it. And the vast majority of states that do have 'shall issue' laws, which means that a citizen must be granted a permit unless they're a criminal - the issuing authority can't forbid them on a whim.

And before you go on about how this will cause a rise in shootings, escalations, etc., consider that Arizona will be the third state, after Alaska and Vermont, to allow people to carry concealed guns without permits. So such fear mongering is likely to be swiftly struck down after a casual glance at the facts.

CR

[Subotan]

Because permits were the bane of the ordinary citizen, forcing the average gun owner to fill in *shock* forms, tick *gasp* boxes, and (I advise those with weak constitutions and the fairer sex to stop reading now) wait a few days!

[Beskar]

Because permits were the bane of the ordinary citizen, forcing the average gun owner to fill in *shock* forms, tick *gasp* boxes, and (I advise those with weak constitutions and the fairer sex to stop reading now) wait a few days!

Instead of law-biding citizens able to get guns, anyone from the street can and walk into the school next door.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

[Beskar]

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

Guns were the originally to be used against the state to prevent exploitation from king, rogue outlaws and the rich. Now since the states has F15's, Nuclear weapons and a functional justice system...

[Strike For The South]

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

pray tell these restrictions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

pray tell these restrictions

How about the fact that 20 years ago most states didn't allow concealed carry?

That's the sign of a civilised, developed and functional State. Carrying a firearm to prevent robbery is a sign of lawlessness.

[Lemur]

But ... but Evil Obama is gonna take our guns away ... any minute now ...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Exactly. Why on earth would you celebrate that the USA has devolved so far towards Somali that it is a *good* thing to carry *concealed* guns? Because that is what you advertise with “Yay! You can carry weapons, and you can do so inconspicuously”.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How has the US devolved towards Somalia?

Crime has been dropping since 1993 according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[Crazed Rabbit]

I grow sick of the insistence that civilized states ban guns.

Do explain this, instead of simply saying banning weapons is civilized. Tell me how taking freedoms and preventing people from effectively defending themselves is 'civilized'.

And give me an example of such a civilized place; for clearly Britain, with chavs and hooligans and stabbings and shootings despite all its laws, is not. Indeed, America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.

And the legislatures passing laws against guns were passing laws against minorities, immigrants and homosexuals at the same time. Gun control in America started to prevent Black people from owning guns.

Because permits were the bane of the ordinary citizen, forcing the average gun owner to fill in *shock* forms, tick *gasp* boxes, and (I advise those with weak constitutions and the fairer sex to stop reading now) wait a few days!

How's the ban on photographing police in Britain working out for you? Speaking of which, surely you wouldn't mind filling out such a form before you spoke in public? You know, just outlining when and what you would be talking about, so the police could prevent hate speech. If you aren't a criminal you should agree.

Was the permit onerous? Not really. But I will still celebrate greater freedom.

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

Here's my reasoning which may be why you and I disagree on the guns.

(1) In a decently run state there is no need for a private individual without license to carry guns (or any type of arms for that matter) in public space. After all, it is the duty of the state to provide the security for its citizens through the Rule of Law, no?
(2) The only purpose for a concealed gun is to pretend you do not have one; when in public. There is no point in pretense on your own private property, after all.
(3) The only purposes for guns in public in a decently run state is, as per (1), to enable law enforcement officers and similar agents to provide the security to the citizens.
(4) There is absolutely no point for law enforcement or similar agents to pretend that they do not carry weapons when in fact they do.
(5) Continuing with (3) it follows that their job is substantially easier if private citizens do not have unrestricted access to guns; and in particular that if they had, these guns should not be concealed.

Therefore (6) A celebration of the right to carry concealed guns is a sign of a state devolving so far that it is apparently unable to meet its security obligation towards it citizen; moreover it is a sign that society recognizes a need for private individuals to carry guns in order to provide for this security themselves. The latter part in particular would imply that citizens run a high risk of violent assault, to the point that concealment of your gun becomes a useful element of surprise in day to day business.

Now that scenario strikes me as the kind of country one would find in a certain location in the Horn of Africa.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

...except...violent crime rates have been decreasing since 1993




****

Basically, the gun laws aren't a sign that the USA is devolving into a criminal haven.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I know. So why this celebration? Perhaps you could please look a bit closer at PVC's post to see where I am coming from (with due hyperbole, otherwise it just looks utterly morose from this side of the Atlantic).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I know. So why this celebration? Perhaps you could please look a bit closer at PVC's post to see where I am coming from (with due hyperbole, otherwise it just looks utterly morose from this side of the Atlantic).

One can celebrate a welfare bill being passed despite the fact that it means there are still poor people.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Er, yes. Not to put too fine a point on it but basically: apples and oranges. A welfare bill intends to aid poor people becoming less poor, generally speaking; it tends to aid a society in solving the problem of poverty. A concealed-guns-bill does not aid anyone who didn't have a gun in the first place (got to have gun before you can conceal the fact that you do). And it doesn't aid the Rule of Law at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Er, yes. Not to put too fine a point on it but basically: apples and oranges. A welfare bill intends to aid poor people becoming less poor, generally speaking; it tends to aid a society in solving the problem of poverty. Concealed-guns does not aid anyone who didn't have a gun in the first place (got to have gun before you can conceal the fact that you do). And it doesn't aid the Rule of Law at all.

Ok, but you just answered your own question then. If you believe that more people carrying concealed guns decreases the crime rate, then what you and PVC said is the equivalent of CR saying "Why are you guys celebrating your universal health care, it's just a sign that the UK is devolving towards [some country where people are sick all the time]".

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's my reasoning which may be why you and I disagree on the guns.

(1) In a decently run state there is no need for a private individual without license to carry guns (or any type of arms for that matter) in public space. After all, it is the duty of the state to provide the security for its citizens through the Rule of Law, no?

No decently run state can eliminate crime. Therefore, and in absence of arguments against government tyranny, etc., there remains a reason to arm yourself.

Further, the actions of individuals in a free society should never, ever, be based on need. Free people should have to prove a 'need' to do something.

And it doesn't aid the Rule of Law at all.

According to the police, it does. Please see the bolded section in the OP;

However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

Police support it because it aids the rule of law, by giving law abiding citizens the power to resist criminals who would break the rule of law.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And give me an example of such a civilized place; for clearly Britain, with chavs and hooligans and stabbings and shootings despite all its laws, is not. Indeed, America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.

This is false, we have less than 1/3 the shootings per capita in London than in New York, and an even lower number per capita nationally. Britian is a much safer place than America.

The capital saw 117 murders in the 12 months up to March: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/New York saw 471 murders in 2009, according to the NYPD: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...ics/cscity.pdf

These are official law-enforcement stats, CR.

[tibilicus]

So basically a celebration that the American gun lovers can carry on carrying around hand guns for no particular reason?

It's been asked but really, what do you need a gun for, especially in public? Attack from a wild mountain lion? Perhaps the British might return and the sudden need to form a local militia will arise? Or maybe you might need one to wave at the meter maid to avoid paying your parking fine?

It really is fascinating to see the right-wing of America celebrate in the past time of having rights for the sake of rights, no matter have negatively they affect crime levels. Oh and no permits, great idea. It's not like we need to make sure which type of people are buying weapons.

Edit:

Police support it because it aids the rule of law, by giving law abiding citizens the power to resist criminals who would break the rule of law.
CR

I'm sorry, what?! This isn't some western film where the bad guys walk into a saloon and ruffle up the locals only to be thwarted by John Wayne waiting in the corner with his revolver. Here in the UK not even the police carry guns and I'm pretty certain our crime level is bellow yours. Care to explain why that is? You know that shooting someone isn't the only way to uphold the law. Most of the NRA membership doesn't believe in gun ownership to uphold the law, they just like the way firing a gun down at the shooting range messages their alpha male egos.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ok, but you just answered your own question then. If you believe that more people carrying concealed guns decreases the crime rate, then what you and PVC said is the equivalent of CR saying "Why are you guys celebrating your universal health care, it's just a sign that the UK is devolving towards [some country where people are sick all the time]".

@Sasaki If you believe that. Funnily enough there is a marked statistical correspondence between the non-law-abiding citizen and the gun-carrying-citizen. Many militia among gang members then?
And outside of the US, say in Mexico, I doubt that what the police is really waiting for would be a more permissive gun law in Mexico so it can get some militia to police the streets for them ...

So yes, @CR, the law-abiding-citizen militia may be the police's best friend in the USA (they definitely aren't over here, where police prefers you leave matters of law enforcement to trained professionals especially in violent situations); but that does not support the claim that concealed guns or even vanilla-guns aid the Rule of Law. It would call into question whether or not the Rule of Law was actually firmly established, though. And then we're back at PVC's post.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@Sasaki If you believe that. Funnily enough there is a marked statistical correspondence between the non-law-abiding citizen and the gun-carrying-citizen. Many militia among gang members then?
And outside of the US, say in Mexico, I doubt that what the police is really waiting for would be a more permissive gun law in Mexico so it can get some militia to police the streets for them ...

Yes, if you believe that. I would think the thread would start with a discussion of whether that belief had merit, and not Somalian hyperbole

[jabarto]

You know something is messed up if Crazed Rabbit and I both agree on something.

While I don't see the need for doing away with licenses, I do share CR's weariness with gun opposers. Because again, I think guns should be pretty heavily regulated, but I haven't seen a coherent arugment from the gun opposition crowd that doesn't essentially amount to "b-b-b-but guns are SCARY!".

But of course none of this matters, because when faced with the choice of cracking down on the actual causes of crime or banning something symbolic and claiming victory when nothing meaningful has actually happened, Americans will do the latter every single time.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But it did do so before Somali entered? PVC has been there before with the succinct post:

I find it interesting that when America has no more wilderness, and is governed by the rule of Law that Americans now feel the need to carry guns. It was American legislatures, from a time when people understood weaponry, that passed the restrictions to begin with.

At the risk of misinterpretation; allow me to phrase an hyperbolic question based on that post: "What is the use of lifting restrictions on guns for Americans, when they have no more wilderness and established the rule of Law in America?"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While I don't see the need for doing away with licenses, I do share CR's weariness with gun opposers. Because again, I think guns should be pretty heavily regulated, but I haven't seen a coherent arugment from the gun opposition crowd that doesn't essentially amount to "b-b-b-but guns are SCARY!".

I can strip and assemble an SA80 in about 1:30, and I haven't touched one in over 4 years, I still remember exactly where safety catch, change lever, dust cover, and TMH pins are. I can probably do it blindfolded, even. I can also use that rifle to bring you down at 100 yards stand, 50 yards running along my line of fire. That's not an "I can do that, on a good day" that's an, "I will hit you, you will suffer massive internal bleeding, maybe die".

With the scope I can hit you out to 400, which is getting towards the upper range of the standard weapon.

At the age of 23 years I really wish I didn't have these skills, and I am perenially terrified of the weapons I am proficient with.

This is not because "guns are scary" it is because they are absolutely useless for anything but killing. If two people pull guns it's an even bet someone will get shot, it might not be one of them. Put simply, "hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else".

In Britain the Police do not carry guns, and until realatively recently they carried only a wooden truncheon. When the nightstick was introduced Police brutality more than doubled, and this resulted in the introduction of the Asp, and special training to disable by striking the joints. The reason Police do not usually carry guns here is that they are unlikely to encounter them, when they do they call in properly trained firearms officers, or better yet the SAS.

Clealry, not having guns works for us, because we have far fewer shootings.

However, I do not support the outright ban because I believe it glamorises these most uncivilised of weapons, and it is unnecessarily excessive.

[jabarto]

I can strip and assemble an SA80 in about 1:30, and I haven't touched one in over 4 years, I still remember exactly where safety catch, change lever, dust cover, and TMH pins are. I can probably do it blindfolded, even. I can also use that rifle to bring you down at 100 yards stand, 50 yards running along my line of fire. That's not an "I can do that, on a good day" that's an, "I will hit you, you will suffer massive internal bleeding, maybe die".

With the scope I can hit you out to 400, which is getting towards the upper range of the standard weapon.

At the age of 23 years I really wish I didn't have these skills, and I am perenially terrified of the weapons I am proficient with.

This is not because "guns are scary" it is because they are absolutely useless for anything but killing. If two people pull guns it's an even bet someone will get shot, it might not be one of them. Put simply, "hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else".

In Britain the Police do not carry guns, and until realatively recently they carried only a wooden truncheon. When the nightstick was introduced Police brutality more than doubled, and this resulted in the introduction of the Asp, and special training to disable by striking the joints. The reason Police do not usually carry guns here is that they are unlikely to encounter them, when they do they call in properly trained firearms officers, or better yet the SAS.

Clealry, not having guns works for us, because we have far fewer shootings.

However, I do not support the outright ban because I believe it glamorises these most uncivilised of weapons, and it is unnecessarily excessive.

Well I must confess that I was in a bad mood and my comment might have been a little too acerbic, so I apologize if you found my attitude demeaning.

I would take issue with your assertion that it's the guns or lack thereof that are the problem. I would pose that the relative lack of crime has more to do with the "social safety nets" that are commonplace in Europe but gutted or absent over here. ANd as I said, America has a tendency to simply ban someting symptomatic of a larger problem and call it good. That's more what I have a problem with, not your individual stance or anyone elses.

Also I should probably point out that I don't like guns on a personal level, and would agree with you that they are uncivilized. I'm not a combative person on any level, but I'd much rather carry a hammer or something similar than a gun.

[PanzerJaeger]

But ... but Evil Obama is gonna take our guns away ... any minute now ...

This wouldn't be one of those "high class trolls" you've been accusing others of making, would it?

Most of the NRA membership doesn't believe in gun ownership to uphold the law, they just like the way firing a gun down at the shooting range messages their alpha male egos.

Do indulge my inquisitive nature by revealing your obviously deep sources within the NRA. Where did you come up with that information?

And, ignoring the pseudo intellectual dig about alpha male egos, what is wrong with enjoying sport shooting?

However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.

Yes. Everyone, including the police, understands that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, the community benefits. Everyone, except for Leftists who don't trust ordinary citizens with such rights. These carry laws have been around for a while now, and - shock - there aren't gunfights in the streets! The Wild West hasn't returned! Crime has gone down, and communities are safer. Smart police forces have even begun to work with citizens to sponsor safety courses and gun familiarization, forging better relationships with the people they protect. Win-win.

[Ironside]

Yes. Everyone, including the police, understands that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, the community benefits. Everyone, except for Leftists who don't trust ordinary citizens with such rights. These carry laws have been around for a while now, and - shock - there aren't gunfights in the streets! The Wild West hasn't returned! Crime has gone down, and communities are safer. Smart police forces have even begun to work with citizens to sponsor safety courses and gun familiarization, forging better relationships with the people they protect. Win-win.

Because Vermont, Alaska and Arizona are regions known for its organised crime and ghetto regions correct?

Anyway the main issue has more to do with perception than anything else. To carry a concealed handgun is to be prepared to use it. And to need a gun for self defense can hardly be a sign of the pinnacle of civilization, but more consitant with a distrust between the police and the rest of the population, combined with paranoia or real worry/fear for violent crimes.

To put it different, if the only ones feeling a need to carry a gun are ciminals, what exactly would be beficial with not outlawing it?

[Subotan]

How has the US devolved towards Somalia?

Crime has been dropping since 1993 according to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

In every year since the Mid-Nineties, Crime has dropped in every Western Country (Except Belgium, lol Andres).

I grow sick of the insistence that civilized states ban guns.

Do explain this, instead of simply saying banning weapons is civilized. Tell me how taking freedoms and preventing people from effectively defending themselves is 'civilized'.

And give me an example of such a civilized place; for clearly Britain, with chavs and hooligans and stabbings and shootings despite all its laws, is not. Indeed, America, aside from gang and drug related murders, has less violence than Britain.

Violent crime has decreased massively under the Labour government, despite what the Daily Fail would rather us all panic think about.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that Americans should own guns. I think it's daft, but it's in your constitution, so by all means, go nuts. Any attempt to decrease gun ownership is probably near-impossible, as there are so many of the damn things, as opposed to the UK where the strict gun laws are easy to enforce.

[Husar]

I think it's about time, I hear when you don't conceal your guns, Apache crews might obliterate you from afar...

I mean yippeeyeay or so, I'm really happy that you people can carry guns in your boxers now...

I don't want to ruin your party like all the british folks, I also saw a police van at work today and they had a skull on black background in it, I wonder what that was for, maybe I should fear our pirate-police? (The women were hot though! just saying... )