Concealed Carry without Permit Bill Signed by Governor

[gvaldeg1]

Today Arizona Senate Bill 1108 which provides for concealed carry without a permit was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.

NRA-ILA :: Governor Brewer Signs Arizona Constitutional Carry into Law

Arizona thus joins Alaska and Vermont which are the only other states to allow concealed carry without a permit. The Arizona CCW program will still be active and Arizona will continue to issue CCW permits which are needed for concealed carry in Arizona in establishments that serve alcohol or for concealed carry in other states which recognize the Arizona permit. The law will take effect 90 days from the close of the current legislative session. In all likelihood, it will go into effect in September.

[buckslayer]

I wish Minnesota would allow us to carry without a permit. That or make a lifetime license.

[NDS]

Oh Yes! Very good news. Hopefully, when the sky does not fall, Constitutional Carry proponents can use this to further degrade the gun-control arguments in their own states.

It's too bad Nevada politicians (and voters) suck California *** too vigorously to ever consider Constitutional freedoms as a viable choice for this state.

[colt4me]

Today Arizona Senate Bill 1108 which provides for concealed carry without a permit was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.

NRA-ILA :: Governor Brewer Signs Arizona Constitutional Carry into Law

Arizona thus joins Alaska and Vermont which are the only other states to allow concealed carry without a permit. The Arizona CCW program will still be active and Arizona will continue to issue CCW permits which are needed for concealed carry in Arizona in establishments that serve alcohol or for concealed carry in other states which recognize the Arizona permit. The law will take effect 90 days from the close of the current legislative session. In all likelihood, it will go into effect in September.

Outstanding!

[Bighouse Doc]

This can only bode well for the RKBA movement!

-Doc

[JSDinTexas]

I applaud the loosening of AZ concealed carry laws, but with reservations, and these considerations:

The TX CHL says that:
1) I am not a convicted felon
2) I have not been treated for a mental/alcohol/drug related condition
3) I have taken a class that instructed me in the laws related to carrying in TX
4) I showed proficiency in loading, shooting, and handling a firearm
5) The TX CHL also conditionally exempts the holder from civil prosecution and resulting lawsuits related to a shooting incident
6) The TX CHL gives me reciprocity in other states without further conditions.

I consider all this a plus, and elevates the license to a more responsible/professional/legal level than the average citizen who may carry without any background check or proficiency training or license.

I do believe that a background check (#1 and possibly #2) or at least, a proficiency check (#4) should be observed along the lines similar to something like getting a drivers license where all but the most incapable or obvious people are denied.

I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind.

OK, I know I may be opening myself up to a heck of a response from some out there, but this is my take on it.

[wolfhunter]

jsdinTexas - <excerpted text>"I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind."

Either you believe in Individual rights and a presumption of Innocence (with an expectation of Responsibility) for that Individual, or you compromise with Statism and the assumption of guilt & an expectation of Irresponsibility.

The "line" should be drawn at "The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" since drawing it anywhere else makes room for the Nanny State mentality.

[JSDinTexas]

jsdinTexas - <excerpted text>"I absolutely believe in the 2nd and no gun registration. And I understand that in any selection process some are denied that should not be, and some accepted that also should not be - but that happens in every selection process.

And no, I have no idea where the line should be drawn, or how to do it specifically, but I am reminded that I have known people who have absolutely no business with a firearm of any kind."

Either you believe in Individual rights and a presumption of Innocence (with an expectation of Responsibility) for that Individual, or you compromise with Statism and the assumption of guilt & an expectation of Irresponsibility.

The "line" should be drawn at "The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" since drawing it anywhere else makes room for the Nanny State mentality.

I suppose I am prompted in my opinion by wanting the license, where it exists, to stand in the shadow of the rule of law, providing that it adheres strictly to its constitutional basis, because if that law is based on the creeds, principles, and constitution that this country is founded upon, then it protects both the responsible and otherwise.

My post was also taking into consideration to that which you refer that I completely agree with, that I appreciate individuals who are responsible in their activities, but I don't always see that.

[wolfhunter]

The Constitutional basis of gun laws is that they don't apply. EVERY gun law written violates the Constitution.

Those who can not or will not act responsibly should be allowed to earn their own Darwin Awards, not be allowed to restrict MY freedoms.

[Piece Corps]

Technically, there should be NO LAW requiring any qualification in order to carry concealed, or to own a gun, period. The 2nd Amendment says, "...the RIGHT (which cannot be granted by the state, as it comes from God) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Remember that any laws will only be ignored by those who wish to break them. The only people laws are made for are those who keep and respect them

That being said, common sense would declare that anyone obtaining a gun should know how to use it. Training should be made available, through gun stores and other outlets. Hand-outs should include state laws such as self-defense, the Castle Doctrine, responsibilities of those owning and carrying a gun, AD's, ammo, etc.

But as soon as you decide to decide who will or will not be allowed to own and/or carry a gun, you make that decision arbitrary - who decides who, what, where or why. Mental cases should not carry? The govt. has decided that military coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. may have PTSD or other war-related disorders, and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Who decides the criteria?

Convicted felons? I'll bet a lot of them were convicted because they used a gun in a crime. Do you think they'll say, "well, I'm not allowed to own a gun, so I won't." The 2nd Amendment speaks to self-defense, which no one should be denied, and protection against a corrupt government, which no one should be denied, either.

Right now, we have to live with the laws already established. So be it. But my opinion is that no one should be denied the RIGHT to own a gun unless you have displayed behavior that would take away that right. Any laws passed right now only dilute our 2nd Amendment rights.