Tucson Gun Rights Examiner Chris Woodard informed us last Thursday of the happy news that Arizona will (absent a surprise veto from Governor Jan Brewer) become the third state to recognize Constitutional carry. At present, only two states, Alaska and Vermont, recognize the right to carry a concealed firearm without first having received a government issued permission slip.
The likelihood of Governor Brewer vetoing the bill is considrered rather small--she has been a reliable supporter of gun rights in the past.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said she has not made a final decision on whether she will sign the bill. "But she has a long track record of strong, vigorous support of the Second Amendment," he said.
The bill goes to her desk today, and the Arizona state constitution does not give her a great deal of time to decide whether or not to veto--if she has not acted on it by Saturday, April 17th, it becomes law.
Such legislation as this needs to be the eventual goal of every pro-carry movement, in every state. As I said back in January:
As gun rights advocates, we argue that the Second Amendment exists to protect an inalienable right--one, indeed, that shall not be infringed. At the same time, though, we have endeavored to persuade the states (successfully, in the vast majority of states) to allow us to ask for (and pay for) a license to carry with us the means to defend our lives and our families. Our "success," in other words, has taken the form of reducing the bearing of arms from a fundamental right, to a privilege.
In asking for that privilege, we have lent implicit legitimacy to the denial of that which we should demand as free citizens.
I am not disparaging movements, like that in Illinois, to bring about licensed defensive handgun carry. Illinois is a long way from approving Constitutional carry, and those who wish to be "law abiding gun owners," without sacrificing the means of effective self-defense, need some option. The far more progressive goal of Constitutional carry can be the intended final product, to be built on the very modest foundation of licensed carry.
Missouri, on the other hand, has less distance to cover to reach the goal of Constitutional carry. That needs to become a major priority next year.
As long as we treat the right to keep and bear arms as a government-issued privilege, rather than a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual, we have little room to complain about the government doing the same.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
I was disappointed to see that this bill leaves in place all of the restrictions on licensed concealed carry but I would definitely call this better than a net win.
Meant to say "all all the SAME restrictions".
As long as we allow the state to dribble out our rights on a piecemeal basis while we're content to snuffle up to their feet and wag our tails in gratitude, that's all we're going to get.
All regulations, "reasonable" or otherwise that infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. If that statement makes me a dangerous Constitutional extremist, so be it. The most direct way to assure our rights to keep and bear arms, as well as all our other rights, would be to repeal all unconstitutional laws and regulations.
[W-III]
Not sure I'm following you AlanR. The permit process is still in place but now optional for AZ carry. The reason permits will still be available is for people who want them for reciprocity with other states. This is a pure win. There's nothing to complain about here, except the requirement to surrender your weapon to your paid servants when asked.
[quote]There's nothing to complain about here, except the requirement to surrender your weapon to your paid servants when asked.[/quote]
How does that fit into a "pure win?" And you forgot to mention all the places they won't be "allowed" to carry at all, continued from the CC permit.
CC in Mo next year...lol. Keep dreaming Kurt. You will see this in perhaps 2-5 more states next year(2011), as follows, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire and perhaps Utah.
Been saying all along the ONLY law that I need to abide by is the Constitution when it comes to fire-arms. All other laws that abridge it, in accordance with how the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written, no citizen has to abide by as they are illegal.
It's about time states are recognizing that simple fact and correcting a gross injustice to the LAW ABIDING citizens.
You don't have to eat the elephant in one bite and you're unlikely (to use a charitable word) as a practical matter to do so. If you're going to demand 'all or nothing right now" you are Constitutionally "correct" but you are also going to have "nothing right now" and for the foreseeable future.
Alaska didn't even have state-preempted concealed carry in municipalities in the early '90s. We got shall-issue and preemption first, and rather restricted SI at that, then set to work improving the law over time. Only after more than a decade did we get permitless carry. We will keep improving that as well.
So, if you want better carry you have three options: be Vermont in the early 19th Century with its Constitution and Supreme Court (not possible even with quantum theory), hold out for the "perfect right now" (reality be damned), or be willing to pragmatically use the system to get what you want over time.
Only one of those has been shown to work more than once.
The federal and state governments chiseled away at our rights and we let them over the past five decades. Now we have to get them back in much the same way. We just need to expedite the process if we can where we can. And in those states we are winning in we need to continue the fight and strengthen the concept that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and cannot be changed. We are just now taking our first steps and learning to walk and pretty soon we will be strong enough to run and overpower those that seek to destroy our right to defend ourselves through our rights. We traded many of our rights for the illusion of creature comforts as a society and now we have to get those rights back one step at a time. Education, personal effort, protests, and with the help of companies like Starbuck's willing to stand up to the Brady campaign we will win and our communities will be safer.
MamaLiberty says:
How does that fit into a "pure win?"
Everything new in the bill is a move in the right direction. (Plus I had already typed the "pure win" line before I remembered about that provision)
I thought they had constitutional carry in Mt too. Our rights do not need to be enumerated or licensed in any way. If they are, it sets the precedent that something is illegal or can be made illegal unless it is specifically authorized-the opposite of a free society. The government must rigorously prove its initiation of force in every single case.
I totally disagree. It is about safety. Va is an open carry state, and you need a license to carry concealed, now that makes sense. Letting any joe blow out there hide his gun in public is RIDICULOUS and dangerous. The constitution says nothing about concealed weapons. To carry a concealed weapon you should have to go through, at the minimum, a gun safety class and show you know which end of the gun to point away from you and basically how to use a gun correctly and safely. Don't we hear enough stories now of persons mishandling guns and shooting themselves or others, wouldn't more people carrying concealed weapons add to these problems?
Unfortunately, the Second Amendment hasn't been incorporated against the states. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to only protect individuals' rights from the national government. Only after the civil war, with the passage of the 14th amendment did some of the Bill of Rights get incorporated against the states. The Second Amendment has yet to be incorporated, thus the states can require a concealed license, depending on their own constitution/laws.
I think its AWESOME! I think ALL Americans should be REQUIRED to carry! Crime would drop 90% because criminals know they stand a chance of getting killed committing their crimes against citizens.
Lou
www.whos-watching.es.tc
Yet another thing that the rest of the world looks at and shakes their head sadly.
You fought to avoid getting public health (instead got a victory for insurers) but the right to get shot by anyone for anything that they draw a gun for.. well, that's fine cos that's in the constitution (no matter how bastardised the original intent has now become). If the founding fathers saw what had happened, they would have made it clear that this was not the intent.
Stupid idiots.
Yeah, All we need is a bunch of rednecks jacked up on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck running around with firearms in public. Stupid Stupid stupid! I have a right not to have to worry about idiots in public with guns!
Now if only we could get laws passed so that we can sue homeowners and businesses that ask people to disarm. No one should EVER have to remove their firearm in ANY circumstance.
Nate, how do you propose to keep the bad guys from concealing their guns in public? If you can't answer that, shut up.
Nathan, you are another who should keep quiet. The founding fathers made their intent known in hundreds of documents, letters, and laws. Go learn some history.
No Guns in Public, NO! You don't have that right you so ignorantly stated. You do have the right to defend yourself from an idiot in public. You need to go learn some adulthood.
Nice, I can't wait for the first shootout in a public place over a dumb redneck disagreement.
I find it somewhat ironic that the promotional poster above, uses the very last phrase I'd ever want to hear from a pro-gun activist. "Do sudden battle ... with utter recklessness." Oleg Volk's work is not known for being reasonable though, or even just non-chauvinistic..
Have any of you gun nuts ever actually read the second amendment? It talks about states forming militias, not having the right to conceal your handgun at the local mall.
What is the matter with you people? Are you too stupid to realize that guns are causing most of the violent deaths in crimes of passion? Someone is angry with someone else, they want to hurt them, they pull out their pistol and pull the trigger, just as if they were pushing the button on an elevator.
So much violence and crime in the US, and yet, no one ever sees how easy it is for some agitated person to simply kill policemen off duty, or a spouse they are arguing with.
Some day the US will wake up and realize that equipping their citizenry with automatic pistols is not what they founding fathers had in mind when they spoke of the right to an 'armed militia'. In the meantime, the rest of the world has the right not to set foot in your crazy country with armed civilians concealing deadly weapons, ready to shoot anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view or they misinterpret their movements as a threat.
Whether anyone has a gun, a brick, a rock, or any other weapon concealed or openly carried is irrelevant. What matters is when that individual takes that weapon and uses it. Until then, the weapon is just a paperweight. There is more damage done daily by these people with their vehicles.
Here is a concept. Trust yourself to not act like an idiot. Trust your neighbor to do the same. Take care of the problem when demonstrated otherwise. Realize that you and everyone else cannot predict or control outcomes. Let it go.
Common sense sometimes is not common.
Whenever I start to think that maybe Americans aren't insane, the Internet proves me wrong.
What a bunch of loonies. How about if we stop the madness and let the children carry consealed. If it is a right, anybody should be able to. Your grandpa who suffering from dementia? It's HIS right. Your neighbor who is sick of your glow-in-the-dark lawn chairs? It's HIS right. Your wife, who is sick of your lazy ass lounging about in your underwear when her mother comes over? It's HER right.
Good luck with that.
Oh yeah ... while we're at it, let's just be honest and say that there was nothing specific about the "arms" of the time, as per Scalia. That's just trying to come up with excuses as to why the pro-gun position doesn't really support shoulder-fired rocket launchers.
Let's make sure everyone has the right to a cruise missile and a fuel air bomb. Pipe bomb? Sure! Why not? The Constitution didn't say anything against it!
What a bunch of bone heads!
To all the forces of imposed hoplophobia who came out of the woodwork to comment:
No one has a right to not be offended. A right can not impose an obligation on another person. My carrying of a gun imposes no obligation upon you. You trying to take away my gun so you won't be scared imposes an obligation on me. If you are afraid of my gun you have the choice of staying away from me, but that would be silly. My gun and I are no threat to you in any way unless you plan to attack me or any other innocent person.
A gun is a tool. It just happens to be the best tool ever invented to give a smaller, weaker person a fighting chance to emerge unharmed from an attack by a bigger, stronger, thug. Why do you anti-gun people hate children, women, minorities, and every other peaceable person so much? Why do you defend thugs against innocent people? You are the unprincipled, hate-filled, irrational lunatics, and your words prove that point better than anything anyone else could say.
Because Guns do not EVER go off accidentally right? And concealing more of them in Public is a recipe for accidental disaster at the least(plaxico anyone). I am not against guns, I am a gun owner, I disagree with having any person legally carry a gun in public hidden away with absolutely no check on there record, mental and criminal, or have any check on there gun safety know how.
straightarrow--you added nothing to the discussion, and resorted to rudeness that shows your ignorance.
Nate: you're wrong. Vermont DOES NOT require a permit to carry concealed. From the state law: "It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man. There is no permit required to carry concealed."
Alaska & Vermont have pretty low crime rates. VT is also very gay friendly too.
Oh, and it's not like everybody is going to be carrying. The AZ law is meant for law abiding citizens that have the legal right to purchase a firearm.
The criminals are carrying anyway, and totally ignoring the laws against it. What's wrong with letting law abiding citizens have the legal right to do what crooks are doing already?
Where's all the horrible news stories about mayhem in Alaska and Vermont? I haven't seen anything showing that the two states who have Constitutional carry are now over run with reckless shootings and deaths because of it. Are the pro gun "rednecks" suppressing the news outlets from getting this mountain of facts and information?
Get real...
All of you progressive thinkers who don't want to have guns in the hands of citizens: When the bad guys try to hurt you, or rape your wife or daughter or mother, how are you going to defend your family? OK, call the cops so they can arrest the badguys (maybe) after the damage is done. Me, I'm going to shoot the bastards BEFORE they can hurt the ones I love.
And I pity the poor folks who are looking to you for protection. Maybe you can whine at the badguys until they go away....
Nate, I'm not sure where you're from, or how mature you are. But you and people like you make me cringe. Should we next outlaw cars and motorcycles? Alcohol? Should we just outlaw everything that can possibly hurt someone? I've heard that Rock & Roll and Hip Hop are bad for kids. Maybe those should be outlawed too? Grow up.
Boy, Kurt, it looks like they all got their marching orders and decided to "pop by" ("swarmed by, more like!") at the same time, doesn't it? Maybe your name came up on the fecal-flingery alert at Brady Bunch central, or something.
And how interesting and famously original are the "yer stoopid!" themes that so preoccupy this mob? So fresh and compelling!
In the spirit of a recent David Codrea post over at WoG, I might suggest the following bumper-stickers for the victim-disarmament faithful:
GUN CONTROL: BECAUSE A BLACK MAN WITH AN AR-15 SLUNG ON HIS BACK IS SCARIER THAN SENDING A MILITARY TEAM TO HIS HOUSE TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM HIM.
GUN CONTROL: BECAUSE EVERY OTHER LIFE FORM IN THE HISTORY OF LIFE HAS IT WRONG ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE.
GUN CONTROL FOR SOCIAL ORDER: TENS OF MILLIONS OF GOVERNMENT-PRODUCED CORPSES CAN'T BE WRONG.
Short and to the point. And at least accurate.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!