Easing Arizona's Gun Laws

Since moving to Arizona I've become more active in many different ways concerning my Rights under the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and under Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution.

As many people do not know, or understand, because our Rights are often hidden from us through various methods of media and governmental (government-run education) obfuscation, most States have their own forms of Carry Rights or Rights that govern self-defense.

In California, for example, a person who can legally own a firearm is permitted to peaceably carry that firearm in public, in full public display (i.e. holstered) so long as it has no round in the chamber and no magazine in a magazine well.

In Arizona the rules are a bit friendlier to gun owners, and they are about to become more friendly.

There are a number of Bills in the Arizona Legislature which are moving Arizona in the direction of States such as Vermont, Alaska, and Utah, among others, in returning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the intent of the Framers of the US Constitution. Here are the Summaries of those Bills (from here):

Bills: House Bill 2307; Senate Bill 1098.
Exempts any firearm or ammunition manufactured and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including registration.

Bills: House Bill 2347; Senate Bill 1102.
Would no longer require people to get a concealed-weapon permit. Would make it legal to keep a loaded weapon in a locked vehicle on school grounds and prohibit anybody younger than 21 from carrying a concealed firearm.

Bills: House Bill 2543; Senate Bill 1168.
Extends restrictions on local governments from regulating firearms and ammunition to include the purchase, acquisition, storage, licensing or registration of such items. The bill also would prohibit cities and counties from banning firearms in parks.

Bill: Senate Bill 1011.
Would allow a faculty member of a state university or community college who has a valid concealed-carry permit to carry a deadly weapon onto school grounds.

Bill: Senate Bill 1021.
Would expand instances when a person is justified in using deadly force.

Bill: Senate Bill 1153.
Would prohibit local government from imposing any regulation on the possession, carrying, sale, transfer or manufacturing of knives.

Bill: House Bill 2406.
Would change the requirements for signs prohibiting the possession of weapons in restaurants and bars to within 20 feet of each register, at every entrance and behind the bar. Anybody who brings in a weapon would not violate the law if the signs weren't properly posted. The law currently requires a sign immediately adjacent to the liquor license.

Bill: Senate Bill 1015.
Would also change the posting requirements for restaurants and bars but does not require the signs at all three areas (near registers, at entrances and behind the bar) - only at one.

Now, I wanted to get the Bills, and their summaries out there before I began my criticism of the opponents of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms who were good enough to respond to questions from The Arizona Republic for the article published today.

It seems that fear mongering is the best response that the anti-gun crowd can bring to the table in terms of a justification for being against the proposed legislation.

Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said some of the legislative efforts could hurt the state economically.

"These laws are not going to be seen as friendly to business, friendly to children and good for the economy of Arizona," she said. "This is a very critical time, and we are turning people away from Arizona, making them more fearful of coming to the Wild West."

As a resident of far east Mesa, Arizona, I have seen virtually no reduction in the number of American and Canadian snow-birds who fly south for the winter as a result of this easing of restrictions. In fact, several of my winter neighbors from such States as Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois all very much like Arizona's very liberal gun laws. Apart from that, I travel up to the Grand Canyon on a fairly regular basis and I have seen no shortage in tourism as empirically viewed by innocently eavesdropping on conversations and catching foreign languages being spoken.

That, after several important pieces of legislation became law on September 30th of last year, including the so-called Bars and Restaurants Bill.

As for the fear mongering, Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix had this to say:

"I'm not sure the general public wants to go back to the day when people could walk into any saloon with a firearm strapped to their hip, but it seems like the majority party does."

Representative Campbell doesn't seem to understand Arizona law all that well.

Property and Business owners are protected under Arizona law from allowing gun-owners to carry on their property - as long as the prohibition against carrying a firearm on the premises is posted or the individual with the gun is asked to leave. Armed citizens who fail to respect the request of a proprietor by remaining armed while on the premises of a particular establishment are subject to conviction for Criminal Trespassing.

As for law-enforcement groups, the response from them is predictable:

The largest hurdle these bills face this year, as in past years, is likely opposition from law-enforcement groups. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes Pearce's bill.

"If enacted, (the bill) will take Arizona back to Wild West carry, with no consideration for officer safety," association lobbyist John Thomas said.

Since the police like a nice, docile, timid, and unarmed populace which they can then bully with impunity this is an expected response.

But would any media piece on gun rights be complete without a comment from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? Probably not.

"You have no laws meant to reduce gun violence and protect the public, and you have an active gun lobby there that wants to do away with even the bare threshold of laws you do have," said Ladd Everitt of the Washington, D.C.-based national Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

These statements are, of course, patently untrue. Laws against murder, assault, attempted murder, improper discharge of a firearm, etc., are not being taken off of the books. And since extremely strict gun laws in places like Cook County, Illinois don't seem to have an effect on stopping gun violence there, I have to question how restricting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in any way benefits law-abiding gun owners. A perception of safety does not make one safe.

Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit "crazy."

"You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public," he said.

Clearly, Everitt doesn't understand that his own statement is a logical fallacy. Anyone can be a "dangerous individual." It isn't possible to know before the commission of a crime if an individual is dangerous or not, and following the commission of another crime "dangerous individuals" have already had their rights to gun ownership suspended. Dangerous felons can't legally own guns, therefore they would be in violation of the law if they carried a weapon they weren't supposed to have in the first place. It isn't possible to forecast in advance who might or might not be a "dangerous individual."

As for criminals carrying weapons in public, I'm shocked that Everitt isn't aware that criminals already are carrying weapons in public. They just handle the matter clandestinely and illegally. The law-abiding person is the person at risk, because they have allowed themselves to be disarmed by laws that don't make sense in a freedom-loving society.

As a closing note, the most important answer to protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms came from Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa:

"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have a right to carry," Pearce said. "When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."

Just for the record, and as a disclaimer, I frequently Open Carry (i.e. pistol holstered in plain sight) my 1911 .45 ACP in what is commonly referred to as Condition 1. What that means is that my 1911 is "locked and loaded." What it also means is that the weapon's safety is engaged. An accidental discharge in this condition is virtually impossible. I also own several other weapons.

(an addition by Rob)
I didn't ask Dave if I could add anything, so I'll apologise right up front. I'm with Dave on this. The logic of restricting guns to restrict violence has been proven to be false over and over again. Australia and the UK have shown this to be true.

However, I recognize that some people perfer to look at these problems from a societal level. To them , I would point out that violence predates guns, historically. For someone looking to commit an act of violence, a gun is a tool. However, if presented with a superior tool as an option, say a laser pistol, they would effectively choose that. History has proven that to be the case or otherwise we'd all be carrting bronze age spears.

I perfer to look at this issue from the individual level, both from a rights and protection standpoint. In doing so, I leave you with this to make my point: