PDA

View Full Version : AZ CCW legislation..


hitman13
03-28-2010, 7:43 AM
Just passing this along.....


http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/03/25/20100325arizona-concealed-weapons-bill.html

Proposed legislation that would make Arizona the third state in the nation to allow adults to carry concealed guns without permits may be the first of the dozen or so weapons-related bills proposed this session to hit the governor's desk.
Lawmakers have amended Senate Bill 1108 and House Bill 2347 so they consist of identical language that would, among other things, eliminate the requirement for concealed-carry weapon permits for U.S. citizens 21 and older.
The Senate bill, crafted by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, was approved Tuesday by the Senate Committee of the Whole and now awaits a vote by the full Senate. The House bill, sponsored by Jim Weiers, R-Glendale, is on the agenda for a vote by the House Committee of the Whole today.
"If you want to carry concealed, and you have no criminal history, you are a good guy, you can do it," Pearce said of his bill. "It's a freedom that poses no threat to the public."
If approved by the Senate, Pearce said his bill will then be substituted for the House bill for a vote by the full House. Because the bills are identical, it can then go directly to the governor.
Only nine states have fewer gun restrictions than Arizona, according to a scorecard released last year by gun-restriction advocates the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Currently, only Vermont and Alaska do not require concealed-carry weapons permits.
Arizona had 153,209 active permits as of March 21. Permit holders are spread across all ages, races and counties, but White males older than 30 in Maricopa and Pima counties hold the majority, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.
In 2008, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit. Gun-rights supporters say their efforts this session will be more successful under Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.
Gun-rights advocates and opponents have voiced concerns about different aspects of the bill.
Several Democrats noted that eliminating the permit requirement also means Arizonans would no longer have to take training classes to carry concealed guns.
Rep. Daniel Patterson, D-Tucson, said he owns guns and is pro-Second Amendment.
"If you don't know how to use that weapon well, it could easily be taken away from you, and you could be killed with your own gun," Patterson said.
In order to buy a gun, individuals would still need to pass a background check.
Several tweaks have been made to the proposed legislation to address other concerns, particularly from law enforcement. It would now require individuals carrying a concealed gun to notify a law-enforcement officer that they are carrying if they are pulled over for a traffic stop. It also would allow the officer to take temporary custody of the gun during a stop.
"We have reworded it to make it a good balance on freedom and still being tough on the bad guys," Pearce said.
The changes prompted the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police to drop its opposition to the bill. The organization's president, Sahuarita Police Chief John Harris, said the chiefs saw the bill was going to pass anyway so they wanted to ensure it was as favorable as possible.

bodger
03-28-2010, 8:58 AM
Good, very good to see this. The right direction.

I do see the point about training though.

spareparts
03-28-2010, 9:00 AM
I can't wait to move back. How I let my wife talk me in to coming to CA I'm still not sure.

Window_Seat
03-28-2010, 10:12 AM
This is certainly good to see. This could lead to more of the Brady's having to head to the garage area with too much damage...:driving:

Erik.

NiteQwill
03-28-2010, 10:25 AM
Kind of split on this.

I do believe there is a certain level of training needed.

It's quite painful to watch folks during CCW qualifications not know the basic understandings of the gun they carry. I experienced this yesterday. Quite scary...

Roadrunner
03-28-2010, 10:26 AM
It's a shame that this kind of bill isn't contagious.

cmth
03-28-2010, 10:34 AM
It's a shame that this kind of bill isn't contagious.

Alaska did it first, and now Arizona. I believe we will see more states do it.

audiophil2
03-28-2010, 10:48 AM
Kind of split on this.

I do believe there is a certain level of training needed.

It's quite painful to watch folks during CCW qualifications not know the basic understandings of the gun they carry. I experienced this yesterday. Quite scary...

Does VT and AK require training? If not, should they change to a required training? AZ does not require any training for legally allowed persons to open carry loaded weapons so what benefits would regulating CCW instruction provide?

The current AZ CCW training does not provide instruction on how to shoot a gun so I see no difference other than 30 minutes worth of quality legal commonsense stretched over 7 hours and 1 hour of waiting for others to shoot a target at close range.

A quality beginners handgun class can be attended for free-$30 and would have much better training.

Quiet
03-28-2010, 11:05 AM
Does VT and AK require training? If not, should they change to a required training? AZ does not require any training for legally allowed persons to open carry loaded weapons so what benefits would regulating CCW instruction provide?

I believe the main reason why it will pass is because AZ is an open carry state.

Since, it is legal for people to open carry (no training required), the transition to allow them to conceal carry is easier to be done.
(i'm legally open carrying. it gets cold and i put on a jacket. jacket happens to conceal the firearm, i'm now a criminal. why is that?)

VT legally allows open and conceal carry (no training required).

AK allows open carry (no training required) and has a shall issue CCW permit system (training required). However, a few years ago, AK changed their laws to allow conceal carry (no training required) without the need to get a CCW permit. AK still issues CCW permits (training required) to AK residents, so that AK residents can carry in other states that honors AK's CCW permit.

I think AZ should change to be like AK.
Allow open and concealed carry (no training required), but still issue permits (training required) so they can be honored in other states.

gunsmith
03-28-2010, 11:33 AM
I wish people would get training, I also wish that Leanne Rimes would marry me and stop dating losers like Tiger Woods.

NiteQwill
03-28-2010, 5:02 PM
Does VT and AK require training? If not, should they change to a required training? AZ does not require any training for legally allowed persons to open carry loaded weapons so what benefits would regulating CCW instruction provide?

The current AZ CCW training does not provide instruction on how to shoot a gun so I see no difference other than 30 minutes worth of quality legal commonsense stretched over 7 hours and 1 hour of waiting for others to shoot a target at close range.

A quality beginners handgun class can be attended for free-$30 and would have much better training.
Not weapons familiarization training but moreso covering the legalities and liability issues regarding carry concealed. Albeit, knowledge of the law is an individual responsibility, I agree.

Hunt
03-28-2010, 5:04 PM
let us pray God Bless Liberty

dustoff31
03-28-2010, 5:27 PM
FYI: These pro-gun bills are up for third reading and roll call vote tomorrow, 29 Mar. All are expected to pass.


Note: the forfeiture of weapons bit in the CCW bill specifies that any forfeited firearms must be sold to an FFL for resale to the public, rather than destroying them.





THIRD READING

March 29, 2010


SB 1108 technical correction; children
(Now: concealed weapons; permit)

Purpose (For more information see Fact Sheet): Makes changes relating to the carrying of concealed weapons without a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit; requirements for obtaining a CCW permit; and the forfeiture of weapons under court order.


SB 1168 firearms; regulation; state preemption

Purpose (For more information see Fact Sheet): Modifies, with regard to firearms, rules or ordinances political subdivisions are permitted to enact, including those that limit the possession of firearms in parks or preserves.


HB 2307 Arizona manufactured firearms; regulation

Purpose (For more information see Fact Sheet): States that a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in this state and remaining within the borders of this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation.

Lost in MA
03-28-2010, 5:48 PM
I believe West Virginia and perhaps one other state are also considering similar measures.

demnogis
03-28-2010, 8:18 PM
I believe this is the type of carry (or "and bear") that is needed in CA.

The only time it should be illegal to posses a complete, functional firearm is if you are a prohibited person, and/or during the commission of a crime.

It's called "Constitutional Carry" for a reason. No infringement!!!

till44
03-29-2010, 1:22 PM
Just spent a week in AZ and am completely sold on moving there after school. This makes it easier.

Glock22Fan
03-29-2010, 1:48 PM
Kind of split on this.

I do believe there is a certain level of training needed.

It's quite painful to watch folks during CCW qualifications not know the basic understandings of the gun they carry. I experienced this yesterday. Quite scary...

And had these people already done the required training?

mstlaurent
03-29-2010, 3:49 PM
We just put an offer in on a house in Prescott this weekend, and it was accepted. Should close escrow by the end of April. :D

Ding126
03-29-2010, 5:03 PM
I can't wait to move back. How I let my wife talk me in to coming to CA I'm still not sure.

I have the exact same thoughts.....

dustoff31
03-29-2010, 5:09 PM
Update:


THIRD READING

March 29, 2010

PASSED, Transmitted to House
SB 1108 technical correction; children
(Now: concealed weapons; permit)

Purpose (For more information see Fact Sheet): Makes changes relating to the carrying of concealed weapons without a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit; requirements for obtaining a CCW permit; and the forfeiture of weapons under court order.

No Word Yet
SB 1168 firearms; regulation; state preemption

Purpose (For more information see Fact Sheet): Modifies, with regard to firearms, rules or ordinances political subdivisions are permitted to enact, including those that limit the possession of firearms in parks or preserves.



PASSED. Transmitted to House. (The HB was substituted for a SB.)
HB 2307 Arizona manufactured firearms; regulation

Purpose (For more information see Fact Sheet): States that a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in this state and remaining within the borders of this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation.

ttboy
03-29-2010, 6:16 PM
I'm working on a transfer to AZ in June and will leave the socialist paradise for ever!!!!

demnogis
03-29-2010, 8:45 PM
I've been planning to move to AZ for a little while.

Constitutional Carry passing there was just the cherry on top!

bodger
03-29-2010, 9:33 PM
We just put an offer in on a house in Prescott this weekend, and it was accepted. Should close escrow by the end of April. :D


Good for you! Prescott is a nice area.

AEC1
03-29-2010, 11:35 PM
I hate to hear talk of required training. It is a fundamental right. So do you have to have training to vote? howabout to speak out? to go to church? NO!!! There should not be training required. That just opens a new way for them to curtail our rights. Privilages can be Licensed/curtailed, rights cannot....

loather
03-29-2010, 11:52 PM
I wish I could lift my house from the foundation and bring it to somewhere nice in Arizona like Flagstaff or somewhere else up in the mountains. I don't tolerate heat well, so Phoenix or other desert cities are kind of out-of-the-question. My brain stops working when it gets above 100 degrees, so that's a situation i strive to avoid :\

The only saving grace is that some of the gun laws here stand to be fixed in rather short order. It doesn't fix the influx of idiots problem, ridiculously high cost of living, and all the other associated problems with California, but at least it's a start, right?

*sigh* if only.

ALSystems
03-30-2010, 6:00 AM
I hate to hear talk of required training. It is a fundamental right. So do you have to have training to vote? howabout to speak out? to go to church? NO!!! There should not be training required. That just opens a new way for them to curtail our rights. Privilages can be Licensed/curtailed, rights cannot....
I agree. No training should be required for CCW.

However for voting (at least in California) is a different matter and probably needs a few requirements such as common sense. :rolleyes:
Maybe it should be required:
Voter Safety Certificate to make sure you know which way to safely point the ballet.
Background Check to make sure you're eligible to vote and not a complete idiot. Based the way we vote, there is probably a need for a literacy test, IQ test and guilability test.
10 Day Voting Wait to make sure you have a cooling off period before you vote foolishly.
Safe Politician Roster to make sure politicians who lie, cheat, steal or don't follow the will of the people are disqualified. If they do after getting elected, they should be automatically removed from office.

ocspeedracer
03-30-2010, 6:12 AM
I'm so glad to hear this. I believe no training should be required, it is a fundamental right that we be able to protect ourselves.

That said, just because I'm against required training doesn't mean I condone stupidity. I believe, however, the obligation and responsibility is on the individual and not to be forced upon us by the government. Also, I'm all for strict punishment if there is an un-needed shot that results in tragedy.

cmth
03-30-2010, 7:09 AM
Though I don't support public schooling, if the state were truly concerned about education and safety, school kids would be taught the rules of firearm safety from a young age. They would know that guns are dangerous and should not be touched, but they would also know how to make a gun safe and to handle one in a safe manner. They would also be taught about when force is justified, what the consequences of deadly force are, and that it is best to avoid confrontations if at all possible. These are things that all parents should teach their kids, regardless if there is a gun in the house or not. But since the state insists on operating in loco parentis, it should be taught in public schools as well. If they really cared about the safety of our kids, it would, and there would be no question about who was trained or not. The zero tolerance policies that are in force now are abominable failures. Zero tolerance = total ignorance.

hitman13
03-30-2010, 7:13 AM
Kind of split on this.

I do believe there is a certain level of training needed.

It's quite painful to watch folks during CCW qualifications not know the basic understandings of the gun they carry. I experienced this yesterday. Quite scary...
AZ is already an open carry state. Do you believe that people need 'training' to open carry as well?

No difference really.

Glock22Fan
03-30-2010, 7:24 AM
As I have been quite vocal on another recent thread, it is probably known that I too think that making training compulsory is wrong. Even though I wholeheartedly support voluntary training, there is absolutely no evidence that compulsory training would prevent NG's (look at the number of trained people that have them) or prevent accidental deaths (where are the accidental deaths that need stopping in those areas that don't have compulsory training?)

Also, as said, if training should be compulsory for CCW, then it should also be compulsory before OC and before casual range visits are allowed.

The furthest I would go would be to require short tests of knowledge of the laws and of basic gun handling ability. Say an hour max. And that before you can own a firearm, not before you can get a CCW. And offer voluntary training for those wishing to prepare for those tests.

And NiteQuill hasn't responded to my earlier question. Had these people who scared him already gone through the 16 hours compulsory training? I assume from what he said that they had, in which case this is more evidence that basic training does not stop the behavior to which he rightly objects.

audiophil2
03-30-2010, 10:13 AM
As I have been quite vocal on another recent thread, it is probably known that I too think that making training compulsory is wrong. Even though I wholeheartedly support voluntary training, there is absolutely no evidence that compulsory training would prevent NG's (look at the number of trained people that have them) or prevent accidental deaths (where are the accidental deaths that need stopping in those areas that don't have compulsory training?)

Also, as said, if training should be compulsory for CCW, then it should also be compulsory before OC and before casual range visits are allowed.

The furthest I would go would be to require short tests of knowledge of the laws and of basic gun handling ability. Say an hour max. And that before you can own a firearm, not before you can get a CCW. And offer voluntary training for those wishing to prepare for those tests.

And NiteQuill hasn't responded to my earlier question. Had these people who scared him already gone through the 16 hours compulsory training? I assume from what he said that they had, in which case this is more evidence that basic training does not stop the behavior to which he rightly objects.

That won't work for me either. As in most states, AZ, allows you to buy guns in the comfort of your own home or even in a parking lot. I prefer the Cabela's parking lot myself. If short tests were required prior to gun purchase then my ability to buy guns person to person would be seriously jeopardized.

I can see how California's laws have actually made some Californian gun owners willing to accept unreasonable laws simply because they already have outragiously stupid laws opressing them. We have no HSC, no 10 day wait, no DROS, and no taxes and fee's associated with those laws. Adding something like what you suggest is the exact opposite of what Arizona gun owners are trying to accomplish. We want FEWER laws than the few we already have.

Glock22Fan
03-30-2010, 10:28 AM
That won't work for me either. As in most states, AZ, allows you to buy guns in the comfort of your own home or even in a parking lot. I prefer the Cabela's parking lot myself. If short tests were required prior to gun purchase then my ability to buy guns person to person would be seriously jeopardized.

I can see how California's laws have actually made some Californian gun owners willing to accept unreasonable laws simply because they already have outragiously stupid laws opressing them. We have no HSC, no 10 day wait, no DROS, and no taxes and fee's associated with those laws. Adding something like what you suggest is the exact opposite of what Arizona gun owners are trying to accomplish. We want FEWER laws than the few we already have.

I don't really think they are necessary either, but I wasn't suggesting taking the test every time you buy a firearm. One test, one certificate, umpteen purchases, in whatever car park(s) you like. And I said that it was the most I'd be prepared to accept. I totally agree that experiences in numerous states have demonstrated that there is no problem to be solved, except in the minds of certain gun owners (59% of the readers of this forum) and the Brady bunch.

Sgt Raven
03-30-2010, 11:08 AM
Does this CCW law address the GFSZ rules like their state issued CCW permit does?

audiophil2
03-30-2010, 11:09 AM
I don't really think they are necessary either, but I wasn't suggesting taking the test every time you buy a firearm. One test, one certificate, umpteen purchases, in whatever car park(s) you like. And I said that it was the most I'd be prepared to accept. I totally agree that experiences in numerous states have demonstrated that there is no problem to be solved, except in the minds of certain gun owners (59% of the readers of this forum) and the Brady bunch.

I understand where you are coming from. I am very pro-training on anything but I am totally against forcing others to submit. Each gun owner is responsible for thier own actions and ignorance of the law is never a valid excuse. Since I did not have a CCW before I moved here I open loaded carried for a few weeks. I never had to take any training for that or any tests.

I think what you are suggesting is very similar to the FOID that Illinois has. It is yet another right-infringed law that will hopefully be abolished in the near future.

I won't tell you how to decide which laws are good and which are bad with regard to guns. I had my own feelings that some regulation was "acceptable" but then realized that even the slightest regulation is the first step in additional regulation. The country as a whole is stepping towards de-regulation. Why make statements about what you are willing to "accept" when the momentum is currently toward complete deregulation? Once you state you are willing to accept something, you imply that these laws should be made/enforced/re-instated. I personally don't want to give any lawmaker the chance to say "We have these laws because you gun owners were willing to accept them."

I'm not even crazy about the current CCW permit elimination laws proposed here. I do not think I should notify a LEO I am carrying a firearm if all I did was get stopped for a questionable speeding ticket. If I got stopped and was truly not speeding (not really needed since limits are 65-75 here) why must I provide any info other than my license, proof of insurance, and registration? I can't take my gun into a courtroom so it's not like I can use it as a witness to the unjust ticket. Unless I had my gun wedged against my gas pedal causing me to speed, I see no reason for it to be a part of the stop. Unfortunately, this law is already on the books so it is a challenge for a later date. No sense in fighting every battle at once.

tba02
03-30-2010, 11:26 AM
Safe Politician Roster to make sure politicians who lie, cheat, steal or don't follow the will of the people are disqualified. If they do after getting elected, they should be automatically removed from office.

- aka Drop Test

audiophil2
03-30-2010, 11:37 AM
Today is the final vote on constitutional carry and firearms pre-emption before it goes to the governor for signature.

Glock22Fan
03-30-2010, 12:56 PM
I understand where you are coming from. I am very pro-training on anything but I am totally against forcing others to submit. Each gun owner is responsible for thier own actions and ignorance of the law is never a valid excuse. Since I did not have a CCW before I moved here I open loaded carried for a few weeks. I never had to take any training for that or any tests.

I think what you are suggesting is very similar to the FOID that Illinois has. It is yet another right-infringed law that will hopefully be abolished in the near future.

I won't tell you how to decide which laws are good and which are bad with regard to guns. I had my own feelings that some regulation was "acceptable" but then realized that even the slightest regulation is the first step in additional regulation. The country as a whole is stepping towards de-regulation. Why make statements about what you are willing to "accept" when the momentum is currently toward complete deregulation? Once you state you are willing to accept something, you imply that these laws should be made/enforced/re-instated. I personally don't want to give any lawmaker the chance to say "We have these laws because you gun owners were willing to accept them."

I'm not even crazy about the current CCW permit elimination laws proposed here. I do not think I should notify a LEO I am carrying a firearm if all I did was get stopped for a questionable speeding ticket. If I got stopped and was truly not speeding (not really needed since limits are 65-75 here) why must I provide any info other than my license, proof of insurance, and registration? I can't take my gun into a courtroom so it's not like I can use it as a witness to the unjust ticket. Unless I had my gun wedged against my gas pedal causing me to speed, I see no reason for it to be a part of the stop. Unfortunately, this law is already on the books so it is a challenge for a later date. No sense in fighting every battle at once.

If you haven't already, check on the poll thread regarding compulsory training for CCW's. I spoke out long and hard regarding any infringement to the 2nd. To be fair, some of the others agreed with me but it has to be said that 59% of this forum insist that compulsory training is essential, at least in here in the "non-gun culture" state of California. It is against that backgound that I grudgingly say that if NG's and pig-ignorant gun owners are a problem, then the solution MIGHT be to make those owners demonstrate that they have had some basic safety training, organized or from a friend.

I an completely unconvinced that there is a problem that needs solving, and no one has yet offered anything but their emotional feeling that untrained people lead to dead kittens and rivers of blood in the streets.

I have also yet to see any sensible argument that 16 (the current Cali standard) hours of training is enough to stop NG's, especially when we hear stories every week of some "highly trained" government gun bearer shooting a table, or some trainee's leg, or the ceiling. You can teach the three (or four, depending how you count them) essential safety rules in five minutes. After that, the essential part of gun safety lies between your ears.

audiophil2
03-30-2010, 1:27 PM
If you haven't already, check on the poll thread regarding compulsory training for CCW's. I spoke out long and hard regarding any infringement to the 2nd. To be fair, some of the others agreed with me but it has to be said that 59% of this forum insist that compulsory training is essential, at least in here in the "non-gun culture" state of California. It is against that backgound that I grudgingly say that if NG's and pig-ignorant gun owners are a problem, then the solution MIGHT be to make those owners demonstrate that they have had some basic safety training, organized or from a friend.

I an completely unconvinced that there is a problem that needs solving, and no one has yet offered anything but their emotional feeling that untrained people lead to dead kittens and rivers of blood in the streets.

I have also yet to see any sensible argument that 16 (the current Cali standard) hours of training is enough to stop NG's, especially when we hear stories every week of some "highly trained" government gun bearer shooting a table, or some trainee's leg, or the ceiling. You can teach the three (or four, depending how you count them) essential safety rules in five minutes. After that, the essential part of gun safety lies between your ears.

I just skimmed through that thread and all I can say is I am shocked to be reading those posts. I honestly believe that CA gun owners are willing to cave just to get a glimpse of hope. All the years of oppression worked.

Untamed1972
03-30-2010, 1:30 PM
I just skimmed through that thread and all I can say is I am shocked to be reading those posts. I honestly believe that CA gun owners are willing to cave just to get a glimpse of hope. All the years of oppression worked.


It's kinda like battered spouse/child syndrome. AKA battered gun-owners syndrome.


It is odd though. But if you look at some of the responses you see how the libs get all scared. Here we have a group of firearms savy people who think "hey we know what we're doing, you can trust us". But as soon as the notion of ANYONE being able to carry comes up then all in the sudden the gun savy folks are all "Hey.....I dont know if I'm comfortable with just anyone carrying a gun, it's ok for me, but not for just anyone....well unless they wanna jump thru some hoops first."

Who does that sound like? Can't have it both ways folks......either we as a society are going to move back to expecting personal responsibility from adults or we aren't. But you gotta pick one.

audiophil2
03-30-2010, 1:52 PM
It's kinda like battered spouse/child syndrome. AKA battered gun-owners syndrome.


It is odd though. But if you look at some of the responses you see how the libs get all scared. Here we have a group of firearms savy people who think "hey we know what we're doing, you can trust us". But as soon as the notion of ANYONE being able to carry comes up then all in the sudden the gun savy folks are all "Hey.....I dont know if I'm comfortable with just anyone carrying a gun, it's ok for me, but not for just anyone....well unless they wanna jump thru some hoops first."

Who does that sound like? Can't have it both ways folks......either we as a society are going to move back to expecting personal responsibility from adults or we aren't. But you gotta pick one.

You sir make way too much sense.

ALSystems
04-01-2010, 6:23 AM
It's kinda like battered spouse/child syndrome. AKA battered gun-owners syndrome.


It is odd though. But if you look at some of the responses you see how the libs get all scared. Here we have a group of firearms savy people who think "hey we know what we're doing, you can trust us". But as soon as the notion of ANYONE being able to carry comes up then all in the sudden the gun savy folks are all "Hey.....I dont know if I'm comfortable with just anyone carrying a gun, it's ok for me, but not for just anyone....well unless they wanna jump thru some hoops first."

Who does that sound like? Can't have it both ways folks......either we as a society are going to move back to expecting personal responsibility from adults or we aren't. But you gotta pick one.
+1
I'm one for expecting personal responsibility from adults.

But I think all the liberal indoctrination has created a majority of gun haters in California and those that have resisted have developed "battered gun-owners syndrome".

California has become a Big Nanny State. :wacko: Obama is trying to turn the whole country into a Big Nanny Government. :willy_nilly: All I can say is we better preserve the American way of life before we become another failed European Country.

hitman13
04-01-2010, 6:34 AM
+1
Obama is trying to turn the whole country into a Big Nanny Government. :willy_nilly: All I can say is we better preserve the American way of life before we become another failed European Country.
"It took a Jimmy Carter to give us a Ronald Reagan" ~ some bumper sticker...

groats
04-01-2010, 7:25 AM
If 59% of the posters here feel mandatory training is essential, or vitally important,
what percentage have gone out and paid for that training for themselves?

I'll bet it is less than 30% of the 59%.

bigstick61
04-01-2010, 12:07 PM
I agree. No training should be required for CCW.

However for voting (at least in California) is a different matter and probably needs a few requirements such as common sense. :rolleyes:
Maybe it should be required:
Voter Safety Certificate to make sure you know which way to safely point the ballet.
Background Check to make sure you're eligible to vote and not a complete idiot. Based the way we vote, there is probably a need for a literacy test, IQ test and guilability test.
10 Day Voting Wait to make sure you have a cooling off period before you vote foolishly.
Safe Politician Roster to make sure politicians who lie, cheat, steal or don't follow the will of the people are disqualified. If they do after getting elected, they should be automatically removed from office.

While I'm sure you were being facetious, I actually agree with limited suffrage. Voting is not a natural right at all, and the fundamental rights, like those to life, liberty, and property, are all natural rights. Voting is a receipt of political power, and all political power should rightfully be treated as a privilege subject to qualifications. While the term "right" is used in the Constitution, it is still basically treated no different than a privilege; a State could impose almost any qualification it wanted; only the ones specifically prohibited in the Constitution could not be made qualifications. Everything else is permitted.

When it comes to actual rights, there should definitely be no licensing or restrictions that do not pertain to harming others and violating their rights, and things of a similar nature.

Untamed1972
04-01-2010, 12:14 PM
When it comes to actual rights, there should definitely be no licensing or restrictions that do not pertain to harming others and violating their rights, and things of a similar nature.


Have a use of force class as a requirement for graduating HS seniors. so just before they're old enough to posess a gun, they're given a detailed course in their 2nd ammendment rights and responsibilities.

bigstick61
04-01-2010, 2:15 PM
Have a use of force class as a requirement for graduating HS seniors. so just before they're old enough to posess a gun, they're given a detailed course in their 2nd ammendment rights and responsibilities.

As long as it is not a prerequisite to exercising their rights, I would be all for firearms instruction in public schools. There's only a couple of schools that I can think of that have anything to do with firearms. One has shotgun ranges (it's in L.A. somewhere, of all places), and I just found out that Garfield High has a basement range from a teacher who works there.

I think instruction in firearms safety and employment (outside of just the CCW realm) would truly be benficial for the students. It'll never happen in this State, though.

socalblue
04-01-2010, 2:46 PM
As long as it is not a prerequisite to exercising their rights, I would be all for firearms instruction in public schools. There's only a couple of schools that I can think of that have anything to do with firearms. One has shotgun ranges (it's in L.A. somewhere, of all places), and I just found out that Garfield High has a basement range from a teacher who works there.

I think instruction in firearms safety and employment (outside of just the CCW realm) would truly be benficial for the students. It'll never happen in this State, though.

When I was in school we had basic firearms safety in K-8. Little tykes started with "stay away & call an adult" up hunter safety class in 8th grade (All based on the NRA curriculum). We had very active Jr rifle & trap/skeet clubs in both Jr HS & HS. Funny thing - we had virtually no firearm related accidents in the community.

bigstick61
04-01-2010, 8:56 PM
The only thing I had was air rifle and air pistol teams in high school via NJROTC and I got a gun club started (we also had a paintball/airsoft club). My club actually sponsored a firearms safety class taught by a parent who was in the Glendora PD at the time. The campus was also allowed to be used to wage airsoft battles on during the weekend. For history presentations period firearms could be brought with permission of the principal and storage in the arms locker.

hitman13
04-02-2010, 6:04 AM
I truly can not fathom some of your guys' thinking processes.

AZ is an open carry state. No training required.

Why do some of you guys now think that training should be required for concealed carry?

Does an 8 hour class magically make someone a better / smarter shooter?

This is pretty much the reverse thinking of the entire "I OC but what if I put on a jacket" argument.....

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

It's almost like I just stepped into a bizarro world.....

CalNRA
04-02-2010, 6:26 AM
The people who are the most vocal about "some mandatory training" are gonna have a rude awakening when they see the interpretation of "some training" by the likes of Baca, Hutchens, Hennessey, Smith, et al.

VegasND
04-02-2010, 6:38 AM
I truly can not fathom some of your guys' thinking processes.

AZ is an open carry state. No training required.

Why do some of you guys now think that training should be required for concealed carry?

Does an 8 hour class magically make someone a better / smarter shooter?

This is pretty much the reverse thinking of the entire "I OC but what if I put on a jacket" argument.....

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

It's almost like I just stepped into a bizarro world.....
It's like stepping into 'bizarro world' every time I visit California or log on at CGN.

I guess the people in CA are so accustomed to excess regulation and government interference that they can't imagine being free of such. Perhaps having a bureaucrat looking over one's shoulder and issuing a worthless piece of paper makes them feel safer.

The mindset difference can be astonishing.

Put me down for government butting out of my life -- I hope AZ passes this legislation; it would be one more reason for me to move back there.

Glock22Fan
04-02-2010, 7:06 AM
It's like stepping into 'bizarro world' every time I visit California or log on at CGN.

I guess the people in CA are so accustomed to excess regulation and government interference that they can't imagine being free of such. Perhaps having a bureaucrat looking over one's shoulder and issuing a worthless piece of paper makes them feel safer.

The mindset difference can be astonishing.

Put me down for government butting out of my life -- I hope AZ passes this legislation; it would be one more reason for me to move back there.

Well then, if it is just us Californians, why was it that I had to travel 240 miles to Las Vegas and do an eight hour course before I got my NV CCW?

Almost every NG I hear of is from so-called "trained" people.

VegasND
04-02-2010, 7:18 AM
Well then, if it is just us Californians, why was it that I had to travel 240 miles to Las Vegas and do an eight hour course before I got my NV CCW?

Almost every NG I hear of is from so-called "trained" people.
I thought about that after I posted and should have edited:
Of course you're right; the attitude has become more pervasive outside the 'blue states' in the past few decades. I should probably have stated that the attitude seems more pervasive in CA than in NV (outside Clark County -- CC is CAlite), AZ, etc.

Notice I said I'm a tired of the BS in Clark County and am looking at the possibility of moving my residency back to AZ? Unfortunately AZ is not nearly as free as it was 30 years ago!
...Almost every NG I hear of is from so-called "trained" people.
I've noticed that those seem to get a lot of attention as well. I generally attribute it to the press having an antagonistic attitude toward police and other law enforcement. This is probably another category where accurate statistics will be forever unobtainable because of obfuscation.

Untamed1972
04-02-2010, 7:21 AM
As long as it is not a prerequisite to exercising their rights, I would be all for firearms instruction in public schools. There's only a couple of schools that I can think of that have anything to do with firearms. One has shotgun ranges (it's in L.A. somewhere, of all places), and I just found out that Garfield High has a basement range from a teacher who works there.

I think instruction in firearms safety and employment (outside of just the CCW realm) would truly be benficial for the students. It'll never happen in this State, though.

I was not suggesting it be a prereq to exercising their rights. It's more of a prereq to expecting personal responsibility from those about to become adults. Kinda like "Here is what society expects of you if you choose to own and carry a firearm.....from hence forth you cannot claim you did not know what was expected of you and are hereby expected to conduct yourself responsibly.....and these are the consequnces if you dont."