Outdoor Adventure USA

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.

More here.

but (it) does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.

The law goes into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for this session, which could happen in the next couple of weeks.

So it should be Arizona law sometime late July 2010.

Yup, too bad it won't go into effect in time for the Indian trip (so don't, unless you hold an AZ CWP). Open carry is still totally legal, however.

...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...

Wow. I will say that I am biased towards "free" states, but this guy's dishonesty is just as bad as many on the "gun control" side of the line.

Approvals / Criminal Database Listings: nope, Arizona is a "shall issue" state - you don't need approval from anyone. You DO need to pass a background check first, which is the exact same background check you do to buy a gun in the first place (federally mandated).

Two Mandatory Tests: nope, does this guy even have an AZ CWP? One 8 hour class with a range qualification at the end (can you hit a man-sized paper target at 30 feet? good!).

Taxation: There was a one-time $25 fee that covered the background check and printing of my shiny new CWP. Calling that "taxation" as part of a rant is a bit of a stretch.

"Rights": We have a right to keep and bear, something Arizona does not infringe on in any way I'm aware of. I don't see the word "conceal" anywhere in the Constitution or it's related documents.

"Enormous resources": Seriously? 3% of under 7 million people once every 5 years? If anything, the CWP program has probably DECREASED the amount of police resources wasted on "tracking the innocent". The only thing they do is run a background check (again, same one as when buying a gun), and if passed, print and mail your CWP. That's it. Then, those folks with CWPs never have to do a background check to buy a gun again because it is considered already done, which means police resources are not wasted running background checks every time a CWP holder buys a firearm. It is likely a safe bet that at worse they are breaking even on the man-hours and money spent on the CWP program versus the background checks they don't have to do now every time a CWP-holder buys a firearm.



Again, I am all for this bill and wish other states would do the same, but we need to be honest about the reasons, pros and cons or we are no better than the gun grabbers.

unwiredadventures wrote: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.

Hmmmmmm...................No "bloodbath" resulting from carrying a firearm, eh?. I guess that the carriers of handguns in these states all must be above average in intelligence.

Imagine that!

DaveK wrote:Hmmmmmm...................No "bloodbath" resulting from carrying a firearm, eh?. I guess that the carriers of handguns in these states all must be above average in intelligence.

Imagine that!

Vermont is the same. I read somewhere that Vermont has the 3rd lowest crime rate in the country.

unwiredadventures wrote: Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days.

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).

I think a couple of important side notes: None of the states in question have high population densities in the overwhelming majority of their territory. Alaska is definitely a unique environment relative to any other state; Texas has it for traveling; Even Montana, with one of the lowest populations of any state, still prohibits this in it's cities.

The other note of interest (to me, at least): The most active threads in the last few months on this forum are firearms threads. I think this is a shame. I understand it's relativity to hunting, and protection in the great outdoors; but open carry in cities? CCWs ? I'm just saddened that the gun enthusiast here don't have more to share in other areas that might be more in line with the main focus of OAUSA - Outdoor Adventures. While I know gun regulations can be of importance to the enthusiast, the posting of every new legislative issue regarding firearms seems a little over-weighted here, IMO. I'd like to see this forum attract people with other outdoor interests besides handguns; and I do believe this focus might actually be dissuading many from joining - not every outdoorsman is a gun person, and not all who don't care for guns are vocal.

I'm already anticipating the reponses - not trying to stir up more trouble, just putting out the possibility that these intense threads might actually stifle the growth of this forum...

cruiserlarry wrote:I think a couple of important side notes: None of the states in question have high population densities in the overwhelming majority of their territory. Alaska is definitely a unique environment relative to any other state; Texas has it for traveling; Even Montana, with one of the lowest populations of any state, still prohibits this in it's cities.

In the words of John Galt, "OH PAHLEEZZZE"

cruiserlarry wrote:The other note of interest (to me, at least): The most active threads in the last few months on this forum are firearms threads. I think this is a shame. I understand it's relativity to hunting, and protection in the great outdoors; but open carry in cities? CCWs ? I'm just saddened that the gun enthusiast here don't have more to share in other areas that might be more in line with the main focus of OAUSA - Outdoor Adventures. While I know gun regulations can be of importance to the enthusiast, the posting of every new legislative issue regarding firearms seems a little over-weighted here, IMO. I'd like to see this forum attract people with other outdoor interests besides handguns; and I do believe this focus might actually be dissuading many from joining - not every outdoorsman is a gun person, and not all who don't care for guns are vocal.

Deal with it!

unwiredadventures wrote:Vermont is the same. I read somewhere that Vermont has the 3rd lowest crime rate in the country.

Probably not related to gun regulation, though.

Vermont is very rural, very low population density, and not generally a climate conducive to rampant criminal behavior. Most totalitarian governments throughout history have had very low crime rates among the populace, but I wouldn't want to adopt their governments, court systems, or regulations here...I guess you could extrapolate removing personal freedoms reduces crime using that same tangential logic...but it's not related, either....

cruiserlarry wrote:

unwiredadventures wrote: Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days.

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).

I think a couple of important side notes: None of the states in question have high population densities in the overwhelming majority of their territory. Alaska is definitely a unique environment relative to any other state; Texas has it for traveling; Even Montana, with one of the lowest populations of any state, still prohibits this in it's cities.

The other note of interest (to me, at least): The most active threads in the last few months on this forum are firearms threads. I think this is a shame. I understand it's relativity to hunting, and protection in the great outdoors; but open carry in cities? CCWs ? I'm just saddened that the gun enthusiast here don't have more to share in other areas that might be more in line with the main focus of OAUSA - Outdoor Adventures. While I know gun regulations can be of importance to the enthusiast, the posting of every new legislative issue regarding firearms seems a little over-weighted here, IMO. I'd like to see this forum attract people with other outdoor interests besides handguns; and I do believe this focus might actually be dissuading many from joining - not every outdoorsman is a gun person, and not all who don't care for guns are vocal.

I'm already anticipating the reponses - not trying to stir up more trouble, just putting out the possibility that these intense threads might actually stifle the growth of this forum...

I agree. It kinda' goes with the territory though. As much as this site tries to broaden it's scope to include many outdoor endeavors, it's roots are still planted in the offroading realm....and boys love their toys. Trucks and guns...trucks and guns...trucks and guns, ugh,ugh,ugh,ugh (in the Tim Allen vain)......I get it already, well, actually I don't get it.
As a nearly rabid upland birdhunter I have absolutely no problem with guns or gun ownership. I do have problems with many and nearly most of their owners, legal or not. IMO, many show very poor skills with handling and safety.....I firmly believe the anti-control mantra that "guns don't kill people...people kill people", and that's what worries me most. With a broadspread ability to carry, concealed or not, even amongst the law-abiding I could see complacency set in just as it does when people get behind the wheel of a car (just as lethal). Everyday law-abiding people kill other law-abiding people by accident, because we allow nearly anyone to pass a driving test and meet certain requirements.
I admire fine shotguns, but I have no appreciation for handguns. I've only been one place in the US where I felt insecure enough that I felt I needed a gun for protection, and in that case a handgun would not be the first choice. That was on a fishing trip in Alaska.
This is just my opinion and to each their own I guess, but I think the gun talk and commentaries should be made on the hunting and gun forums, there is no shortage of them.

xtatik wrote:

cruiserlarry wrote: I think a couple of important side notes: None of the states in question have high population densities in the overwhelming majority of their territory. Alaska is definitely a unique environment relative to any other state; Texas has it for traveling; Even Montana, with one of the lowest populations of any state, still prohibits this in it's cities.

The other note of interest (to me, at least): The most active threads in the last few months on this forum are firearms threads. I think this is a shame. I understand it's relativity to hunting, and protection in the great outdoors; but open carry in cities? CCWs ? I'm just saddened that the gun enthusiast here don't have more to share in other areas that might be more in line with the main focus of OAUSA - Outdoor Adventures. While I know gun regulations can be of importance to the enthusiast, the posting of every new legislative issue regarding firearms seems a little over-weighted here, IMO. I'd like to see this forum attract people with other outdoor interests besides handguns; and I do believe this focus might actually be dissuading many from joining - not every outdoorsman is a gun person, and not all who don't care for guns are vocal.

I agree. It kinda' goes with the territory though. As a nearly rabid upland bird hunter I have absolutely no problem with guns or gun ownership. I do have problems with many and nearly most of their owners, legal or not. IMO, many show very poor skills with handling and safety.....I firmly believe the anti-control mantra that "guns don't kill people...people kill people", and that's what worries me most. With a broad spread ability to carry, concealed or not, even amongst the law-abiding I could see complacency set in just as it does when people get behind the wheel of a car (just as lethal). Everyday law-abiding people kill other law-abiding people by accident, because we allow nearly anyone to pass a driving test and meet certain requirements.

Well, DaveK, I have now found a gun owner with common sense. I feel vindicated that it's not only those of us who are not gun fans that have reasonable concerns regarding our safety IF folks are allowed to carry weapons where ever they choose, whenever they choose. Thanks, Randy