Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit

[C-dub]

It has been mentioned in another thread, not by me, but what will happen to Arizona citizens' rights to carry concealed in other states if they do not have a license issued by their own state. It will be just like it is now if your state has fewer requirements or a lower age to get a CHL. They will not be allowed to CC in those states.

As far as not being able to arrest someone for the mere possession of a weapon, they will still be able to do that if there is a reason why they cannot have one. We basically have this now with the MPA. Anyone legally able to possess a gun may have one concealed in their vehicle. Being able to do so while outside of the vehicle is just the next step. And then maybe OC. I don't know. Just thinking out loud here.

[The Annoyed Man]

It has been mentioned in another thread, not by me, but what will happen to Arizona citizens' rights to carry concealed in other states if they do not have a license issued by their own state. It will be just like it is now if your state has fewer requirements or a lower age to get a CHL. They will not be allowed to CC in those states.

As far as not being able to arrest someone for the mere possession of a weapon, they will still be able to do that if there is a reason why they cannot have one. We basically have this now with the MPA. Anyone legally able to possess a gun may have one concealed in their vehicle. Being able to do so while outside of the vehicle is just the next step. And then maybe OC. I don't know. Just thinking out loud here.

That turns out not to be the case. I am on Alan Korwin's email list, and I just got the following email today — relevant passages in red:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end
April 16, 2010

Arizona Enacts "Constitutional Carry" For Firearms
"Freedom To Carry" may replace so-called "Right To Carry" nationally

by Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press
http://www.bloomfieldpress.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PHOENIX -- With governor Jan Brewer's signature on the new "Constitutional Carry" firearm law today, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue.

Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.

Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of "blood in the streets" preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as "Freedom To Carry," appears at the end of this article.

Arizona's extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor.

The intrusive government "permit" system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise "rights" is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state's population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called "fees."

"This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people," said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. "The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties." A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest.

The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. §13-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English and posted by gunlaws.com next week. The new law will become effective 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July.

"Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law", said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, the book that describes the state's gun laws in plain English. "Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We're anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes to spring up statewide," he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes.

"We sold The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide by the truckload for five years before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business," Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book's publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. http://www.gunlaws.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under "reciprocity," which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety).

In addition, since permitees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government "authorization" card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends.

Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn't ban possession and the person doesn't drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time.

Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal.

According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies. Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. "Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed," according to the California-based civil rights group, crpa.org.

Sales of small easily carried sidearms and accessories are expected to increase with passage of the new law.


--


COMMON MYTHS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY


Q: Why is the CCW permit being eliminated?

A: The CCW permit is not being eliminated -- that appears to have been misinformation designed to scuttle the bill. The permit system remains completely unaffected by Freedom To Carry. The permit, its advantages, the training, reciprocity schemes, the classes, fees and taxes are unchanged. That all remains voluntary as it always has been. Anyone who meets that law's requirements can apply. Shame on the "news" media that has repeatedly said otherwise.



Q: What's the difference between Constitutional Carry and Freedom To Carry?

A: There's no difference, they're just two names for the same thing. Constitutional Carry, the more formal term, comes from following the Arizona Constitution's provision that "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired...". Freedom To Carry (no government interference with the right to arms) refers to the next step after so-called Right To Carry (massive government interference with the right to arms).



Q: If people can just carry guns, won't crime and gun problems skyrocket?

A: Half of Arizonans keep and bear arms now, without any of the CCW red tape and government supervision, and without any "skyrocketing" problems. Removing the requirement to only carry openly doesn't change who people are or how they act, it just restores their rights. Restoration of rights and becoming mentally unhinged are not related -- but the same arguments have been made everywhere CCW programs passed.

It's commonly recognized that some folks, especially people who lean left politically, do seem to equate discreetly bearing arms and becoming unglued. Decades of experience however provide no evidence of any such behavior. Those concerns have been repeatedly proven false and often turn out to be irrational fear mongering. Government permission slips for the exercise of rights have not turned people into homicidal maniacs. Restoring the right to discreetly bear arms will not change people into something they are not, and brings the state into proper compliance with its Constitution.



Q: Can anyone carry a gun?

A: Anyone who could legally carry a gun previously can legally carry under this law, no more, no less. "Prohibited possessors" -- criminals, illegal aliens and others forbidden to carry arms remain banned as always. The main change is that now a woman can put a handgun in her handbag without being subject to arrest for carrying discreetly without a government permission slip (and a man has equal right to carry a gun in any discreet manner -- under a sport coat or shirt, in a pocket or pants holster, fanny pack, attaché case, etc.)



Q: Training is a good thing, why was it eliminated?

A: Training is indeed a good thing and it is not eliminated. Anyone can and should take as much training as they want, which is voluntary. What has changed is that you are no longer forced to take government-mandated classes, registration and taxes before you can exercise your right to carry discreetly. This is the same formula working in Arizona since statehood for open carry (which includes concealed carry in your home, business, land, vehicle (with some minor conditions), and in a visible scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons, or in luggage. Now that the half of the public that bears arms can do so discreetly, many experts expect statewide gun training to flourish.



Q: Won't people shoot each other if they're not required to take the training?

A: Twelve states currently issue CCW permits without a training requirement and they're doing just fine. Half of Arizonans exercise their right to arms without government-demanded training and they're doing just fine. The idea that you're only safe if government requires training is statist, foolish and incorrect. That said, responsible people should get education and training for firearms—and swimming, machine tools, medical care, raising children, being married, owning a home, preparing food, writing articles, etc., without government mandates.

If government could require training for everything that has risk, your freedom would be evaporated and your government would be out of line. Government has no legitimate delegated authority in this country to be your nanny like that, or to require anything beyond the specific, limited delegated powers given to it in the Constitution and subsequent valid legislation. The fact that government has in many cases abandoned those constraints is part of why the Tea Party movement has gained such ground and, in some cases, driven the public out into the streets with pitchforks (figuratively).

Currently, 11 states issue carry permits without training and they're fine (AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA). Because Arizona recognizes all other permits, many of our snowbirds have been carrying under those permits, without problems.



Q: Why are children of any age going to be allowed to carry guns to school?

A: That is total nonsense. No such thing occurs. The bill has no effect on children. That appears to be part of a misinformation campaign designed to scuttle the bill. There is no change as to who has the right to keep and bear arms. School grounds are unaffected by the law. That question is typical of similar lies and disinformation used to defeat and mislead the public about many good bills that seek to restore our civil rights. It's almost as bad as the lies told about blacks during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Almost.



Q: Will other states imitate Arizona and enact Constitutional Carry?

A: Many people hope so, and it has the backing of the gun-rights groups.



--30--



AFTERWORD: INSIDER INFORMATION:
There is one reason and one reason only why this got done --
The Arizona Citizens Defense League.

That small handful of guys running this group, the two full-time volunteer lobbyists Dave Kopp and John Wentling, and the thousands of members who supported the effort with their tiny membership dues are exactly and precisely why our rights have expanded.

It was a deliberate, conscientious, focused and tireless effort from what must be a candidate for the best pro-rights organization in the nation. Get your friends to join, send a donation or buy a t-shirt or hat, attend the meetings, and in your little way, make a difference and preserve our rights. http://www.azcdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



One other tidbit -- the NRA was rightfully nervous about this whole Freedom To Carry, permitless, no training, no red tape expansion of our rights. They dragged their feet at first, that's putting it mildly, and I can't say I blame them. An awful lot was on the line.

They wanted to be prudent. Limit exposure and risk. They have all their trainers to think about and that revenue stream. The chance of falling flat on your face in total embarrassment is a serious concern. The ease with which the antis might cast us as dangerous gun-toting (their media's favorite slur) nuts is a real issue.

I personally debated hard with some of the top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board. Some gun owners like to pick on the NRA, but the NRA is going to be at the forefront of this battle. The Constitutional Carry issue does make sense, for them and for us. It will be a winner in some states, maybe yours, and does advance everything for which NRA members stand.

Yes, some of those members, steeped in darkness, or hooked on the government-permit feed trough, believe that red-tapeless carry is a bad idea. They crave government supervision. They want that permission slip in their wallet. They'll learn, and come around. And continue to get fine training from NRA certified and other trainers because it's the right thing to do, not because the government commands it. Appleseed is doing a phenomenal job in the training arena too, check them out while you're at it. http://www.appleseedinfo.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[blue]

Thank you TAM.



*****Constitutional Carry 2011******

[joe817]

"Great jumping gehoseyfat!!!" - Sherman T. Potter, MASH 4077.

I actually understood everything he had to say, without having to get my dictionary out and go into deep meditation to contemplate the phases of the universe!

Thanks so much TAM for sharing that with us. He makes some good points.

I want to say I thoroughly embrace every thing he has to say and totally agree with it. but something is telling me to hold on, don't make judgment and try to think it through. (I hate being a fence sitter)

Bottom line is that he puts forth a very appealing argument. No doubt that Arizona has set a precedent for this. Only time will tell if other state legislatures will embrace similar legislation. But I do think is that the forward thinking Arizona Legislature has gotten the immediate attention of America.

[C-dub]

It has been mentioned in another thread, not by me, but what will happen to Arizona citizens' rights to carry concealed in other states if they do not have a license issued by their own state. It will be just like it is now if your state has fewer requirements or a lower age to get a CHL. They will not be allowed to CC in those states.

As far as not being able to arrest someone for the mere possession of a weapon, they will still be able to do that if there is a reason why they cannot have one. We basically have this now with the MPA. Anyone legally able to possess a gun may have one concealed in their vehicle. Being able to do so while outside of the vehicle is just the next step. And then maybe OC. I don't know. Just thinking out loud here.

That turns out not to be the case.

That's good. I mistook the passage of this to mean that their licensing would go away. Hopefully, many more states could pass the same legislation and would hopefully recognize a person's right to carry even without a license no matter what state they reside.

[C-dub]

Well, I messed up on the quote. The "That turns out not to be the case" was posted by TAM.

[texas1234]

Aint gonna happen in texas the chl program generates revenue for the state. Not gonna happen.

[The Annoyed Man]

Aint gonna happen in texas the chl program generates revenue for the state. Not gonna happen.

If so, it doesn't generate much revenue. First of all, it's not like property taxes, or sales taxes, or something. Only a tiny fraction of the state's residents apply for/nenew a CHL license in any one year. Remember that in a state with a population of 24,326,974 for 2008 (SOURCE), there are 314,574 as of 12/31/08 (SOURCE), or about 1.3% of the population. In any given year, three things are happening: 1) existing licenses expire through death or loss of interest; 2) existing licenses are renewed; and 3) new license applications are processed. Even with the huge upturn in applications over the past year, it's not like the number of CHLs out there have doubled or tripled. And even if they had, it would mean that 2.6% or 3.9% of the population had them.

When you take the comparatively small number, multiply it by the fee per license, and then subtract the administration costs and processing costs, there may be a surplus, but it isn't like it is a huge surplus.

[Bill]

OH NO..................!


Now every business in Arizona will immediately put up "No guns allowed" signs to disallow those who choose to carry from entering.

Let's watch this one carefully folks, and when you DON'T see it happening......please re-examine that same fear about "open carry/no permit required" if those were to become law in Texas.

Most of the public doesn't care. The few that would have fainting spells (at the very thought) will get over it....or can move to California.

Sorry, but gun owners all across America need to stand up and be a little more aggressive about what we want.

GOOD FOR ARIZONA!

When I visited this last year and open carried, no big deal. Of course I was in Prescott

[Charles L. Cotton]

I personally debated hard with some of the [NRA] top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board.

What an absolute joke!

Chas.

[texas1234]

Aint gonna happen in texas the chl program generates revenue for the state. Not gonna happen.

If so, it doesn't generate much revenue. First of all, it's not like property taxes, or sales taxes, or something. Only a tiny fraction of the state's residents apply for/nenew a CHL license in any one year. Remember that in a state with a population of 24,326,974 for 2008 (SOURCE), there are 314,574 as of 12/31/08 (SOURCE), or about 1.3% of the population. In any given year, three things are happening: 1) existing licenses expire through death or loss of interest; 2) existing licenses are renewed; and 3) new license applications are processed. Even with the huge upturn in applications over the past year, it's not like the number of CHLs out there have doubled or tripled. And even if they had, it would mean that 2.6% or 3.9% of the population had them.

When you take the comparatively small number, multiply it by the fee per license, and then subtract the administration costs and processing costs, there may be a surplus, but it isn't like it is a huge surplus.

Its still has generated well over $100 million in revenue to the State. I have worked on permit bills that generate $150,000 to the State and they are favored in the legislature. Its not going to happen in Texas at least not now.

[RHenriksen]

I personally debated hard with some of the [NRA] top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board.

What an absolute joke!

Chas.

Which part is the joke - that the NRA agreed not to fight the effort, and got on board? Or are you disputing the veracity of Alan's statement?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I personally debated hard with some of the [NRA] top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board.

What an absolute joke!

Chas.

Which part is the joke - that the NRA agreed not to fight the effort, and got on board? Or are you disputing the veracity of Alan's statement?

NRA wasn't going to fight open carry, so there was nothing to prevent. That's the same crap that some supporters of open-carry say about the TSRA; they falsely claim that TSRA opposed open-carry. TSRA never opposed open-carry, but the claim was made because we didn't jump on board their legislative project. Not supporting something is not tantamount to opposing it.

However, if NRA was going to oppose open carry, no one person, especially someone not even on the NRA Board, would be able to change that policy. Policy decisions are well-debated in the appropriate committees and a decision is made only after thorough consideration. I've known Alan for a few years now and served on the President's Special Committee on Right to Carry created by former NRA President Sandy Froman. He was a non-NRA Board Member member of the committee. I know his true feelings about the NRA; he made them very clear.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Charles, I met Korwin at the TSRA booth at the back of the room at the convention a couple of months ago. Or at least it seemed like it was the TSRA booth. TSRA, Korwin, and Suzanna Gratia Hupp appeared to be sharing tables. There's even two books by Korwin for sale on the TSRA website.

In any case, he seemed like a decent enough guy. But this leaves me confused. Is he a hot-headed fool after all, or is it simply a case of two people agreeing on one thing, but not much else? FWIW, I happen to share the NRA's philosophy of a measured and methodical approach as being the best way to restore all of the RKBA. I only included the paragraphs about NRA in that quote of his email because they were relevant to the Arizona story. There are other parts of the email I did not include because they cover other subjects.

[74novaman]

I of course like this but I have a few concerns......

1. The safety issue of just anyone carrying a gun without any necessary training or even knowledge about a gun scares me a little.

What part of the current CHL class do you think addresses these issues? It doesn't take much to pass the shooting test, IMO.