MORE GUN FREEDOM FOR THE JOY OF ARIZONA?

Forums: Guns, Arizona, Gun Nut, Weapons Laws, Self-Defense Freedom
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Arizona Republic

by Alia Beard Rau - Feb. 3, 2010 12:00 AM

Arizona has always held tightly to its legacy as part of the gun-toting Wild West
and a protector of individual rights.

This year, the state's Republican governor and a conservative Legislature may continue
that tradition by giving Arizonans some of the least-restrictive weapons laws in the nation.

This session, state lawmakers have proposed more than a dozen bills on expanding rights
to carry and use guns and knives.

The proposed laws would allow people to carry concealed weapons without a license, end
requirements that guns manufactured and kept in Arizona be registered, and allow
university professors to carry guns on school grounds.

Although the number of bills on the subject is not unusual, weapons-rights supporters
believe this year - with a conservative governor, a Legislature sympathetic to their cause
and more freedom to address issues other than the budget - may be their year to lift many
limits. It also is an election year, and gun rights have always been a popular campaign
platform among conservatives.

"Arizona is very gun-friendly, and we've made a lot of progress over the past probably 10 to
12 years," weapons-rights lobbyist Todd Rathner said. "But, right now, the Legislature
and the governor are favorable to a pro-Second Amendment agenda, so we're trying
to accomplish as much as we can."

Weapons advocates are so optimistic about their chances this year that a knife-rights
advocacy group hopes to use Arizona to launch a national effort to give state Legislatures
exclusive authority over local governments to regulate knife use.

The efforts won't be without opposition.

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." [HENCE, LEFTISTS WILL STAY OUT OF ARIZONA.]

Gun-friendly state

Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills
that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened
gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons
to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would
have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.

In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and
Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer became governor. Lawmakers quickly proposed
weapons legislation, and Brewer began signing it.

During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and
restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns
from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.

Jan Brewer has been a supporter of Second Amendment rights over her elected career,
spokesman Paul Senseman said. He said having her as governor has helped the effort
in the state over the past year.

"I think last year was very productive in terms of extending the protections of
the Second Amendment," Senseman said.

Brewer would not comment on specific legislation before it reached her desk.

"But it will be important that we continue to be judicious and responsible in enacting good
protections for our Second Amendment rights," he said.

Testing ground

Rathner said Arizona's current political atmosphere is precisely why Knife Rights Inc.
chose this time and this state to propose a bill that would pre-empt local governments
from regulating knives.

Rathner for years represented the National Rifle Association in Arizona, but this year, he is
lobbying for the national knife-owner advocacy group. Knife Rights, which Rathner said has
a few thousand members nationwide, is based in Gilbert and was started in 2006.

"Guns have been pre-emptive for a decade, and there's been no problem with it," he said.
"Knives are the next step."

Rathner said about 10 Arizona cities restrict knives, including Phoenix. Phoenix outlaws
carrying knives, except for pocketknives. If the bill becomes law, Phoenix's ordinance
would no longer be enforceable.

If successful, Rathner said, the group will push other states to pass the law.

Several Arizona cities oppose the bill, including Phoenix.

The Legislature

The gun measure likely to draw the biggest buzz proposes to no longer require people
to get a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill. He said his bill
simply puts into law what Arizona and the nation's founders always intended.

"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have a right to carry," Pearce said.

Whether they support the bills or not, legislators agree on one thing:
Many of the bills have a good chance of becoming law.

Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he has owned guns most of his life. He said that
changing the concealed-weapon permit law moves Arizona in the wrong direction but
that his opinion may not matter.

"If the Republicans want to push this through, we can't stop it.
They run the Legislature. They run the Governor's Office,"
he said. "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."

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, warned that nothing is a sure thing in the Legislature,
particularly this year.

"The budget is casting such a gloomy cloud that it's hard to get a read," he said.

However, Republican House Majority Leader Chuck Gray said Second Amendment
rights also are a priority.

"Most of the gun issues are going to be looked at to make sure they are written correctly,
but we will be very favorable toward the rights of the people," Gray said.

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.

Only nine states have fewer gun restrictions than Arizona, according to a scorecard
released last year by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-restriction
advocacy group.

If some of the legislation is passed, Arizona will likely move lower on the list.

"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.

Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a license and the other to
exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more
than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third
state in the nation to allow either of the freerer restrictions.

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.
[LIKE THAY DON' t DO THAT NOW.]

Pearce said he thinks the legislation will help make Arizonans safer.

"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."

[emfasis added by David]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 7,417 • Replies: 47

No top replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he has owned guns most of his life. He said that
changing the concealed-weapon permit law moves Arizona in the wrong direction but
that his opinion may not matter.

"If the Republicans want to push this through, we can't stop it.
They run the Legislature. They run the Governor's Office,"
he said. "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."

I have to wonder who Chad thinks the Legislature and Governor are representing, if not the general public.

0 Replies

One objection that I have is this notion of limiting gun freedom rights
to those citizens who are "law abiding."
HOW do we define that?

I don't believe that any citizen is able to be "law abiding" very long.
There are so many laws, some of which conflict with one another,
that without knowing it (either as to the operative facts or as to the law)
people almost inevitably violate laws, the same as we unknowingly
and non-maliciously walk upon small or microbial life.
The same as it is hard to know, when u walk down the street
if u r trampling on an innocent ant, so also u don 't know a very
large part of extant law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse from prosecution.

Few of us can be perfect in feeding the parking meter on time ALL the time,
or avoiding any disagreement with the IRS on some tax matter,
or having problems with a vast array of federal, state, county,
city, boro, village and sewer district agencies' regulations that we don t even know about.

If any prohibition were limited to violent crime,
like robbers of liquor stores or banks it woud be less offensive, tho of course equally futile as it is now
to stop robbers or murders from carrying weapons of their choice.

I have suggested, for many years, that anti-crime efforts shoud be directed against violent CRIMINALS,
the men, not against their tools; i.e., violent criminals shoud be ISOLATED on a long term basis, from the decent people,
possibly removed and banished from the North American Continent (unless the Canadians want them).

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Now, David, you know that failure to feed that parking meter on time is going to remove someone from the "law abiding" status. They will probably go with felony convictions and open indictments. In the event of a state level conviction on the order of Martha Stewart, the governor could change the status.

Personally, I have some qualms about guns in drinking establishments. There is going to be someone who takes it as a provocation, and have to act on it. I also have misgivings about someone having to conspicuously disarm themselves and stashing the firearm in the car. That couldn't help but invite a forced entry.

The idea of states nullifying federal law is interesting, but any parties relying on such a law will likely find reasons for regret.

2 Replies

@roger,

This has the potential of escalating many minor disagreements into felony murders. David assumes that people are packed tightly to be able to handle the responsibility of an "everyone be packing" law.

Will we be settling ordinance dsagreements or sewage permit infractions with gunplay?

I recall that they tried this universal arming law in Imokolee Fla 20 years ago. IT had disastrous results as I understand. The l;aw was repealed within two years after some serious wounding and a few murders.

MAYBE DAVE, you should go get a time machine and transport yourself back to Tombstone Arizona of a hundred or more years ago.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Now, David, you know that failure to feed that parking meter on time is going to remove someone from the "law abiding" status. They will probably go with felony convictions and open indictments. In the event of a state level conviction on the order of Martha Stewart, the governor could change the status.

I 'm not sure what the effect of a pardon is qua
a federal cause of action of "felon in possession . . .".

roger wrote:

Personally, I have some qualms about guns in drinking establishments.
There is going to be someone who takes it as a provocation, and have to act on it.

This, as to open carry.
Some carry will be concealed; (most, in my opinion).

roger wrote:

I also have misgivings about someone having to conspicuously
disarm themselves and stashing the firearm in the car.
That couldn't help but invite a forced entry.

I 've known that to happen with some items of very little significant value in a valise,
whose owner 's trunk was broken into, while we were at a party.

roger wrote:

The idea of states nullifying federal law is interesting,
but any parties relying on such a law will likely find reasons for regret.

It will fall to the USSC to interpret the 9th and 10th Amendments.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Arizona will make a good test state. We need to test the theory that arming everyone results in less violence than arming no one.

In order for the test to be effective the state should require every man, woman and child to carry a gun at all times (and to have it in a waterproof container when swimming laps at the gym or when bathing). When sleeping, the gun should be kept under the pillow so that the home owner can blast those sneaky home invaders (or any children unwise enough to sneak into their parents bedrooms at night).

And when in public places, if anyone even shows their gun, and you think they are becoming aggressive, show your own gun and become aggressive back at them to deter them from committing violence.

(Brought to you by the Bloodbath Alliance of Arizona)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This has the potential of escalating many minor disagreements into felony murders.
David assumes that people are packed tightly to be able to handle
the responsibility of an "everyone be packing" law.

Assuming is unnecessary. The social dynamics involved r not speculative guesswork,
like whether there is life on other planets, as u imply.
These social dynamics r known facts.

farmerman wrote:

Will we be settling ordinance dsagreements or sewage permit infractions with gunplay?

About as ofen as citizens pick up a chair and wack someone with it,
or pull a knife on a sewer dept. clerk, yes
(which means almost never).

farmerman wrote:

I recall that they tried this universal arming law in Imokolee Fla 20 years ago.
IT had disastrous results as I understand. The l;aw was repealed
within two years after some serious wounding and a few murders.

I have a lot of trouble believing that 's a problem, Farmer,
because there r and long have been universally armed populations
which very noteably have not become violent with guns among themselves,
with seldom exceptions, for instance troops of the US Army & US Marines
have had extremely little history of Ft. Hood situations breaking out over the years n decades
of American history, including during wartime. Note also that career police, who have been armed on a long-term basis
do not have a history of malicious armed conflict among themselves.

Will u allege that soldiers and Marines are IMMUNE from anger?
Will u dispute that thay ever disagree among themselves?
Do u claim that thay have many shootouts among themselves to settle their differences?

It is my understanding that Vermont has been a State of the USA since 1791,
and it has never had any gunlaws and has none now.
Is that longer than the 2 year period to which u have referred in "Imokolee Fla"?

I 'd estimate that its been about maybe ten years, give or take,
since ALASKA repealed all of its gun laws, with no ill effects and with no repeal of the repealer legislation.
Do u believe that the citizens of Arizona r more violent or less rational than those of Alaska?

farmerman wrote:

MAYBE DAVE, you should go get a time machine
and transport yourself back to Tombstone Arizona
of a hundred or more years ago.

There is NO MAYBE about it. I 'd absolutely LOVE to be able to do that. I 'd use that machine A LOT.
I 'd need it also to move thru space in addition to time (but if u give me that machine, I 'm not 100% sure that Karl Marx 'd be safe).

David

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Arizona will make a good test state.
We need to test the theory that arming everyone
results in less violence than arming no one.

OK, but the right to bear arms does not depend on that.
The tests of unlimited gun freedom have already been run
in both Alaska, for years, and in Vermont (for centuries).

rosborne979 wrote:

In order for the test to be effective the state should require
every man, woman and child to carry a gun at all times

That sounds reasonable, like requiring wearing of seatbelts in cars.
U never know.

rosborne979 wrote:

(and to have it in a waterproof container when swimming laps
at the gym or when bathing).

Maybe just a stainless steel Derringer, for less water resistance.

rosborne979 wrote:

When sleeping, the gun should be kept under the pillow

U wanna have pillowchecks?

rosborne979 wrote:

so that the home owner can blast those sneaky home invaders
(or any children unwise enough to sneak into their parents bedrooms at night).

Thay SHUD knock first.

rosborne979 wrote:

And when in public places, if anyone even shows their gun,
and you think they are becoming aggressive, show your own gun
and become aggressive back at them to deter them from committing violence.

rosborne979 wrote:

(Brought to you by the Bloodbath Alliance of Arizona)

Around 1985 or 86, Florida 's legislature was debating a bill to throw out discriminatory licensure of the right
to defensive gun possession in public places. It was replaced by a statute acknowledging the right of each citizen
to a license to lawfully carry concealed guns,
unless there was something drasticly rong with him,
e.g. adjudicated mental incompetence, or a nasty criminal history.
Even non-fonetic spellers were granted licenses; go figure.

One of the leaders of the leftist opposition was a Mr. Silver,
who issued much inflamatory rhetoric, prognosticating that
the streets of Florida 'd run red with the citizens' blood
as bullets flew more densely than mosquitos in a swamp.
About a year after the bill had passed and peaceful circumstances
prevailed, he had the decency and the honesty to stand up
in the legislature and acknowledge his alarming predictions,
and admitting that he had been incorrect.

Considering the experience of Vermont for 2 centuries: that was no surprize.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Will u allege that soldiers and Marines are IMMUNE from anger?
Will u dispute that thay ever disagree among themselves?
Do u claim that thay have many shootouts among themselves to settle their differences?

I do know bit about one of those services and Id like to say that soldires whove been in combat are some of the highest suicide rates around and their senses of honor dont allow them to act out on others so they most often act out on themselves.

Also, on bases, the carrying of weapons is not universal. Only the police carry.

Quote:

About as ofen as citizens pick up a chair and wack someone with it,
or pull a knife on a sewer dept. clerk, yes
(which means almost never).

Opportunity for violence usually takes the form of whatever is immediately available. SO, you havent successfully defended a "peaceful" situation resol;ution if guns were everywhere. SOME PEOPLE CANT HANDLE IT. (I am in favor of having permits "to carry" after suitable application and demonstrated ability to use judiciously, but universal carry?? NAAAH.).

I can see wearing guns in a wilderness like ALASKA. Out in the wilderness , a gun can be a deterrent to one becoming a lower rung on the food pyramid. Also, up in Alsaska, disarmanent in most bigger cities is strictly enforced, despite what their whacky ex governor had stated. (She had on many occasions demonstrated that she was neither educated, nor educable).

Quote:

Assuming is unnecessary. The social dynamics involved r not speculative guesswork,
like whether there is life on other planets, as u imply.
These social dynamics r known facts

You must subscribe to different evidence than I. I think when Florida repeaked the universal packing law, they were showing very good judgement and wise governance.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Arizona will make a good test state. We need to test the theory that arming everyone results in less violence than arming no one.

I think you are right.

In order for the test to be effective the state should require every man, woman and child to carry a gun at all times (and to have it in a waterproof container when swimming laps at the gym or when bathing). When sleeping, the gun should be kept under the pillow so that the home owner can blast those sneaky home invaders (or any children unwise enough to sneak into their parents bedrooms at night).

Disagree. First, I am against mandatory carry on general principles. Some people just don't like guns, and it should be their choice. Second, some are just afraid of guns. I prefer not to be around people with guns who are also afraid of guns. I am also against mandatory seat belt wearing, although I do think they should be required equipment.

And when in public places, if anyone even shows their gun, and you think they are becoming aggressive, show your own gun and become aggressive back at them to deter them from committing violence.

This could go either way. Could result in escalation, as you imply. Some people get a little strange when they've been drinking. As you say, Arizona should make a good test case.

(Brought to you by the Bloodbath Alliance of Arizona)

I didn't miss the facetious nature of your post Ros, but you make points worth discussing.

Should Arizona actually try to avoid the rather minimal federal regulations involved in gun transactions, there will be problems. If the seller doesn't complete the basic paperwork, there are going to be an unknown number of persons buying guns that just shouldn't have them. It wouldn't be difficult to make the case that some people just shouldn't be armed.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

David wrote:

Will u allege that soldiers and Marines are IMMUNE from anger?
Will u dispute that thay ever disagree among themselves?
Do u claim that thay have many shootouts among themselves to settle their differences?

farmerman wrote:

I do know bit about one of those services and Id like to say that soldires whove been in combat are some of the highest suicide rates around and their senses of honor dont allow them to act out on others so they most often act out on themselves.

R u telling us that if a soldier chooses to end
his life that he will not be able to do it without a gun?
Everyone who wanted to commit suicide waited until guns were invented?
U believe that he can think of no other way to do it?
To that, we add the absolute right of any person to end his life when he chooses to do so.
He has no duty to put up with unpleasant living conditions, if he refuses to do so.

farmerman wrote:

Also, on bases, the carrying of weapons is not universal.
Only the police carry.

We have had police in NY since 1845; 165 years. Is that too small a population sample
to test your idea that people will shoot each other if armed with guns?
What about the citizens of Vermont, who have NEVER had gun laws ???
Do THAY have a big history of personal violence with guns ??

Quote:

About as ofen as citizens pick up a chair and wack someone with it,
or pull a knife on a sewer dept. clerk, yes
(which means almost never).

farmerman wrote:

Opportunity for violence usually takes the form of whatever is immediately available. SO, you havent successfully defended a "peaceful" situation resol;ution if guns were everywhere. SOME PEOPLE CANT HANDLE IT. (I am in favor of having permits "to carry" after suitable application and demonstrated ability to use judiciously, but universal carry?? NAAAH. [O, yeah? What happened to equal protection of the laws ????]).

farmerman wrote:

I can see wearing guns in a wilderness like ALASKA. Out in the wilderness, a gun can be a deterrent to one becoming a lower rung on the food pyramid. Also, up in Alsaska, disarmanent in most bigger cities is strictly enforced, despite what their whacky ex governor had stated.

Since I assume that u r a truthful man,
I must take it that u simply don 't have any idea of what u r talking about.
THERE R NO GUN LAWS IN ALASKA except against kids.
All gun control was thrown out with contempt in June of 2003.
Therefore what u said about "disarmanent in most bigger cities
is strictly enforced" and your reference to WHO being "wacky"?? is foolishness
and u r only PRETENDING to know what u claim is fact.
The government of the State of Alaska has fully PREEMPTED
any municipal gun laws, therefore any mayor or city council who
tried that woud have as much authority to do it as the Hell's Angels Motor Cycle Club.
Your aversion to your fellow citizens being defensively well armed
is visceral, purely emotional, and hopelessly overwhelming your powers of analysis.

How can u live like that?
U r a scientist, right? A geologist?
Back on Ignore, again?

David wrote:

Assuming is unnecessary. The social dynamics involved r not speculative guesswork,
like whether there is life on other planets, as u imply.
These social dynamics r known facts

farmerman wrote:

You must subscribe to different evidence than I.
I think when Florida repeaked the universal packing law,
they were showing very good judgement and wise governance.

The state of the law and the law of the State thru out Florida is that any adult citizen
can get a license, and has a statutory RIGHT to a license,
the same as he has a right to vote or speak freely, to carry a concealed gun,
unless he has been adjudicated to be crazy, after a judicial hearing with a lawyer,
or if he has a bad criminal history.

Florida enacted that statute STATEWIDE, effective in 1987.
It was the first domino for freedom.
Since then 39 more of the United States have followed its example,
and ALASKA went beyond the freedom of Florida by repealing ALL
of its gun laws everywhere STATEWIDE.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I didn't miss the facetious nature of your post Ros, but you make points worth discussing.

Should Arizona actually try to avoid the rather minimal federal regulations involved in gun transactions, there will be problems.
If the seller doesn't complete the basic paperwork, there are going to be an unknown number of persons buying guns that just shouldn't have them. It wouldn't be difficult to make the case that some people just shouldn't be armed.

I am confident that Rosborne was only taunting me.
As to the "problems" to which u refer,
that is what governments DO: work out problems.
The USSC will be called upon to interpret the 9th and the 10th Amendments.
Concerning the "persons buying guns that just shouldn't have them"
a question of equal protection of the laws applies.
Let us even imagine that someone believes that he is the re-incarnation of Napoleon,
but he has always lead a 100% peaceful life.
Does he have less of a right to defend his property?
Does he have less of a right to defend his life?
Are his rights to protection under the law LESS equal than other citizens?

If the guns are made and kept in Arizona, then HOW can Uncle Sam get jurisdiction, without any crossing of state lines?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I was in Ketchikan in 2006 for a series of mine flooding meetings and we discussed the gun laws with several of our colleagues who live in Ak. Your understanding is quite incorrect DAve. Hers a list of some of the prohibitions and requirements for gun ownership, carrying , and purchasing . These were compiled by NRA so I assume you dont have any argument with them?

Quote:

Purchase
No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
It is unlawful to sell or transfer a firearm capable of being concealed on one's person to anyone who has been convicted of a felony or adjudicated a delinquent minor for conduct that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. It is an affirmative defense that 10 years or more has elapsed since the unconditional discharge on the prior offense.

It is unlawful to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to a person whose physical or mental condition is substantially impaired as a result of an intoxicating liquor or drug, or to sell a firearm to a person less than 18.
Possession:
No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun.

It is unlawful for a person convicted of a felony or adjudicated a delinquent minor for conduct that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult to possess a "firearm capable of being concealed on his person" unless a period of 10 years or more has elapsed between the date of the person's unconditional discharge on the prior offense or adjudication of juvenile delinquency.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm, without the permission of the chief administrative officer of the school or district or the designee of the chief administrative officer, on any public or private school property, on a school bus while being transported to or from school, or at a school-sponsored event, or while participating in a school-sponsored event, except that a person 21 years of age or older may possess an unloaded firearm in the trunk of a motor vehicle or encased in a closed container in a motor vehicle.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a courthouse or courtroom, grounds of a day care center or parking lot immediately adjacent to these structures, or within a domestic violence or sexual assault shelter.

It is unlawful to possess a firearm by a person who violates a domestic violence protective order. It is unlawful to possess a firearm while substantially impaired as a result of an intoxicating liquor or drug.

Loaded firearms may not be possessed in any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises. Exempt: The owner or lessee or an employee or lessee while on the business premise.
A firearm is loaded if the firing chamber, magazine, clip or cylinder of the firearm contains a cartridge.

An unemancipated minor less than 16 years of age may not possess a firearm without the consent of his parent or guardian.
Carrying
Any person 21 years of age or older may carry a handgun concealed on their person provided that, when contacted by a police officer, informs the officer of that possession and allows the police officer to secure the handgun for the duration of that contact.
Any person 21 years of age or older may carry a handgun concealed on their person provided that, when contacted by a police officer, informs the officer of that possession and allows the police officer to secure the handgun for the duration of that contact.
A permit to carry a concealed handgun is available for those individuals who desire a means to carry a concealed handgun in states that honor Alaska’s permit to carry.

A person can obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
Is 21 years of age or older.

Is eligible to own or possess a firearm under state and federal law.

Has been a resident of the state for 90 days preceding application for permit.

Has not been convicted of two or more class A misdemeanors within the preceding six years.

Is not currently or has not within three years been ordered by a court to complete an alcohol treatment or substance abuse program.

Has demonstrated competence with handguns.

Permits
The Department of Public Safety shall issue a permit to a person who applies in person at an office of the Alaska State Troopers and is not prohibited from possessing a handgun.
A completed application must be submitted under an oath. The applicant must provide two complete sets of fingerprints and two frontal view color photographs taken within 30 days prior to submitting application. An applicant must not suffer a physical infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun.

A permit is valid for five years. Applications, permits, and renewals are not public records and can only be used for law enforcement purposes.

The Department shall either approve or reject an application within 30 days of receipt. A person shall apply in person for renewal of a permit to carry within 90 days before the expiration of the permit and shall present a complete renewal form under an oath. A permit to carry shall be immediately revoked if the permittee becomes disqualified to receive and hold a permit. A person whose permit is revoked may appeal to the commissioner. If the commissioner upholds the revocation, a person may seek judicial review. If the permit is revoked, such a person cannot apply for a permit until at least five years after it is revoked.

A person carrying a concealed handgun may not carry it into any place prohibited by law.

When entering the residence of another person, one must notify the resident that they are carrying a concealed handgun.

A municipality may not restrict the carrying of a concealed handgun by permit.

A permit holder from with a valid permit from other jurisdictions is considered an Alaska permit holder.

While there are concealed carry laws, they are not loke the old (AND REPEALED) Florida laws that allowed holstered guns in public. In Alaska, guns are checked in cities or bars that require so. Ketchikan required checking of guns at hotels, bars, public spaces, offices, courts, food markets (and several others)

FLORIDA did have an "Open Carry" law but this was repealed while I was working in Imokolee (which was a kind of wild west town in Florida) ASeveral gunfights and murders prompted the repeal of this section of the law. People will do what is on the lowest common denominator of behavior.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

I didn't miss the facetious nature of your post Ros, but you make points worth discussing.

I'm glad you picked up on my meaning even amidst the sarcasm Smile

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I am confident that Rosborne was only taunting me.

Well, there might have been a bit of taunting in there, but most of it was simply an extrapolation of your basic position, along with examples of what I think the likely outcome(s) would be.

To be honest, the main problem I have with most of your positions is that they are simply too black and white. They have no elegance or flexibility to allow them to be functional in the real world. You seem to think like a mathematician, or an engineer. But instead of applying rigid boundaries to math or physics, you apply it to the legal system. I just don't believe the law, or the constitution, or real life was ever meant to be (or *can* be) that rigid.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The overwhelming bulk of the law that u described is FEDERAL, not State.

I have encountered a conflict of information qua preemption
or "out legislating" state law. Years ago, I read in the newspaper that
all of Alaska 's gun laws were repealed.
I have never been there; have no plans to go.
I am not admitted to practice there.

Wikipaedia indicates that the State has preempted municipalities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States#Alaska

I called the Alaska State Attorney General 's Office
and asked whether Ketchikan can legally require checking
guns in hotels, etc. The fellow who answered said that
he does the voluntary gun licenses, but he does not know about Ketchikan.

As to Florida, its ez CCW law obviates the open carry issue.
Its kinda moot, since thay can conceal them, with the ez license.

0 Replies

The chart that comes from that link
is a little twisted, when u open it.

Alaska is above Arizona, the same as on a map.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

FLORIDA did have an "Open Carry" law but this was repealed while I was working in Imokolee (which was a kind of wild west town in Florida) ASeveral gunfights and murders prompted the repeal of this section of the law. People will do what is on the lowest common denominator of behavior.

Wow, I lived in AZ for 8 years, and during that time AZ had an open carry policy. I wasn't witness to any gun fights; and they were pretty common.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

farmerman wrote:
FLORIDA did have an "Open Carry" law but this was repealed while I was working in Imokolee (which was a kind of wild west town in Florida) ASeveral gunfights and murders prompted the repeal of this section of the law. People will do what is on the lowest common denominator of behavior.

Wow, I lived in AZ for 8 years, and during that time AZ had an open carry policy.
I wasn't witness to any gun fights; and they were pretty common.

Gunfights were common?

1 Reply

MORE GUN FREEDOM FOR THE JOY OF ARIZONA?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know