Arizona's Other New Law

[IXLR8]

IXLR8,

I am not a rich man. So don't take this lightly.

We live close to each other in the Katy TX area. I will pay you $100 for the privilege of convincing you, and possibly some on this board, that I am not a danger to society.

You put together the information I should know to carry a gun and a written test.
You develop a practical test of my basic gun handling abilities at Hotwells or American Shooting Center. (I will pay range fees)
You print a card I can carry that states your approval that any member here can check at will while I'm armed.

I will pay you $100 for the privilege of your feelings of security even though the money will be missed.

Unfortunately it is not me that you have to impress, it is the public at large. A 5 minute conversation would be enough to convince me. But the public has to have a benchmark. Perhaps you should have the community pay to test your worthiness to carry a firearm? If you can find a better way to do it, I am 100% behind you. There just has to be a minimum benchmark set by someone familiar with the operation of deadly weapons.

 

[matefrio]

Unfortunately it is not me that you have to impress, it is the public at large. A 5 minute conversation would be enough to convince me. But the public has to have a benchmark. Perhaps you should have the community pay to test your worthiness to carry a firearm? If you can find a better way to do it, I am 100% behind you. There just has to be a minimum benchmark set by someone familiar with the operation of deadly weapons.

"[T]he public has to have a benchmark." $100 of my money and some of my time is on the line to be deemed "an acceptable" gun owner by you and whom ever you see fit to chose for the scrutiny of the public. This forum can serve as that public for now and may be the best to deem me worthy of owning a gun. We have some very qualified folks here and I'm offering to pay you for the privilege of making the public feel safe.

 

[IXLR8]

"[T]he public has to have a benchmark." $100 of my money and some of my time is on the line to be deemed "an acceptable" gun owner by you and whom ever you see fit to chose for the scrutiny of the public. This forum can serve as that public for now and may be the best to deem me worthy of owning a gun. We have some very qualified folks here and I'm offering to pay you for the privilege of making the public feel safe.

I don't have the qualification or the legal entitlement to determine if anyone can carry a gun. What I do offer is an opinion, and it it is solely my opinion. I do not make laws, or enforce laws, that is the job of you hired and elected officials. If my opinion directly conflicts with yours, then we have a disagreement, that is all. I do apologize if I have irritated you with my comments. I thought that this board was place that you could let your opinion be known. There are many things on here I disagree with, and many that I like. But nothing in my life changes as a result of reading them. I just follow the laws the way they are written and enforced. I wish could grant you whatever it is you are looking for, but I cannot. Truce?

 

[matefrio]

There is something wrong about the public deciding the hoops we need to go though.

Look at Chicago. The law and elected officials there have decided to add $400 and time to buy a gun and even then will only allow a select few to carry. That is what happens when you allow others to make laws, or enforce laws, or turn your rights over to elected officials.

Lawmakers and government serve us and our rights need to be protected from them not handed over freely. You feel you don't have the right to decide if I am qualified nor have the legal entitlement to determine if anyone can carry a gun. That's is correct as it is a right given to us by our creator.

I succeeded that right to you though and added a cash incentive and I don't understand why you cannot list the criteria you personally would choose to feel safe and secure.

I agree the time for argument is done. I honestly just wanted to see what criteria you believe the public and yourself would use to grant me back a right I gave you to personally tend. What would you ask me in that 5 min that would grant me the right to carry? I am and was curious enough to put $100 out there for a documented answer and a CHL of sorts with your approval.

The offer still stands.

 

[texas skeeter]

[*] "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
[*] "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
[*] "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."
.

again F-CK BILL RUGER!! I wonder if these comments were made before he made his fortune or afterwards????? and Im DAMN SURE he didnt say nothing of the sort when people were buying all his tactical stocks and hi-cap mags!!!!!!!!!!! another self serving ALREADY RICH PRICK making these statements AFTER the fact im sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i truely hate these kind of people!! just like Swartzenmonkey of CRAZIFORNIA, he got very wealthy making movies glorifying guns!! NOW that he's got his $$$$$, OOH guns are bad!!!!!!! what a HYPOCRITICAL Jacka$$!!!!!!!!!

 

[M. Sage]

Perhaps you should move to AZ. Personally I think people should be educated about the law, and the liabilities of carrying a weapon. AZ law permits the bad guys to carry as well, which will end up in shoot outs, between armed citizens with little knowledge of the consequences.

Texas may not meet with your approval, but it meets with mine.

News flash: bad guys will be carrying guns no matter what. Also, what you're saying about shootouts in the street is exactly what the antis say every time shall-issue CHL comes up.

+1 there are a lot of people that i would not feel at all comfortable with them carrying open or concealed the texas system may be flawed , BUT our ad's accid. shootings,wrongful shooting percentages are way down and i believe the class and range shooting is directly responsible

Oh no, you feel uncomfortable! Have you ever gone through a CHL course? I have, and something tells me that my standards of what makes me uncomfortable might be higher than yours, because many of the people I saw at the class, I'd be uncomfortable even sharing a range with. Judging by the complete lack of skills many of them displayed (one guy kept putting his left thumb around the back of the pistol, even after he cut himself with the slide), I probably won't ever have to. The level of legal knowledge among the people in the class was pretty low, and many simply couldn't get a firm grasp on how legislation should be read. And don't even get me started on mindset. Most of them wouldn't have what it takes to pull the trigger. And yet, they passed. All of them.

Some people just do not posses the required aptitude (or attitude) to carry a firearm. The minimal litmus test that Texas requires should provide an insignificant barrier to those that need to carry a weapon. If I were a LEO rolling up on a situation in AZ, I would have to assume everyone is armed. That will lead to undue and extraordinary stress for all first responders. The TX system may be flawed, but it is pretty good.

If you're LE anywhere you need to know that anybody you meet could be armed. Even if you're not LE, you need to assume the same thing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but now illegal aliens can carry guns in AZ, and the LEO are not allowed to verify the legality of them carrying a firearm? Absurd.

No, your post is absurd. The law only applies to those of us who can legally possess a firearm. Those with felony or domestic violence convictions, those who have been found mentally incompetent or have been committed against their will cannot legally do so. Nor can those who are not at least a permanent resident, or a legal tourist with a hunting license.

It appears though I struck a few nerves with my comments. I did not say that the Texas laws were perfect. I never said anything about limiting purchases of guns or ammo. What I alluded to was that there members of our society that think they should carry a gun everywhere, and perhaps they do not understand the consequences of using it in an unlawful manner. What if someone continually harasses the public at large with his firearm. Under the AZ law, that would be very difficult to prove. People get into heated debates, I just want to make sure that it never escalates into gun violence. The public should never have to fear an armed reprisal from non-government, non LEO, individuals with a chip on their shoulder.

I should be able to carry a gun everywhere. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't. Actually, that's the way rights are supposed to work. It's not my burden to prove why I should be able to exercise them, it's your burden to show why I'm not responsible enough to do so.

People do get into heated debates. People get into arguments. People get into altercations. Should we put restrictions on where people bigger and stronger than normal go? Should we hobble those people? Should I, at 5'10" and 190 lbs, be hobbled and have one hand tied behind my back because I could very seriously injure pretty much any woman I meet without hardly breaking a sweat?

Where do you stop?

The only answer I see is for more people to be armed. When most people have them, guns tend to act as a calming factor, not the other way around.

What struck a nerve is that your opinion on this subject is shockingly anti-freedom.

If you can prove that you deserve to carry either open or concealed, then I have no problem with you doing that. Now, how do you prove that. There are very few avenues in society that allow one person to prove to the people around him that carrying a weapon does not pose a hazard to law abiding citizens. There must be some sort of benchmark of proof that you are of sane mind, and reasonable intent when you carry a weapon. Is there a better way than a standardized test of the law, and marksmanship test? Has anyone ever failed the written portion of the Texas CHL license test? If they can't pass the marksmanship test, they probably should find a different defensive weapon.

Do you support a similar test for people to exercise their freedom of speech? Religion? Vote?

How about you prove to me that your speech, religion and voting habits aren't harmful to others?

It's called a "right", not a privilege that you have to deserve.

Unfortunately not everyone grew up in Texas, around guns, and the culture of guns. I talk to people every day that have never even touched a gun. We take them to Gander mountain and they hold the first gun they have ever seen, and take pictures of each other holding them. So it is OK for one of these individuals to take that gun up the counter and buy it, with a box of shells and begin carrying it in their holster? Now that is nuts!

Yes, it is. It's called playing by big boy rules. If one of these people does something stupid with a gun around me, I'll be the one putting them on the ground, one way or another. It's up to them to be responsible for their actions. It isn't up to you or me or (especially) the state to take care of that. It's up to them, and them alone.

 

[texas skeeter]

I should be able to carry a gun everywhere. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't. Actually, that's the way rights are supposed to work. It's not my burden to prove why I should be able to exercise them, it's your burden to show why I'm not responsible enough to do so.

this by far is one of the most intelligent quotes ive read in a while "here"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!atriot:

 

[Texan2]

wow...

 

[texas skeeter]

wow...

fixed it for ya oh enlightened one!!

 

[Wolfwood]

Perhaps you should move to AZ. Personally I think people should be educated about the law, and the liabilities of carrying a weapon. AZ law permits the bad guys to carry as well, which will end up in shoot outs, between armed citizens with little knowledge of the consequences.

Texas may not meet with your approval, but it meets with mine.

maybe he can stay in texas and participate in working to make this already great state even better, and you can stay home with your frito pie and watch MASH, and cheer whenever hawkeye refuses to pick up a gun.

afterall they are dangerous.

---
after reading the rest of this post i had to add, that i agree wit most of the posts here. and the first part of this one, was a knee jerk reaction on my part. with exception to those of IXL8's persuasion, though i do udnerstand where he (?) is coming from. the people you described in your previous post, that we could take togander mountain and show a gun to, in the frist place probably wouldnt buy one. and if they did, and iw as the one who brought them there, personally i would firmly suggest some range time as soon and as often as they can do it. but i wouldnt tell them not to wear it on their belt. ( in this hypothetical situation)

it is their right.
as it is mine. and frankly Arizona is looking good right about now, though i love this state enough not to leave her when she needs me most. and that goes for all you guys that support this legistlation.

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

maybe he can stay in texas and participate in working to make this already great state even better, and you can stay home with your frito pie and watch MASH, and cheer whenever hawkeye refuses to pick up a gun.

afterall they are dangerous.

---
after reading the rest of this post i had to add, that i agree wit most of the posts here. and the first part of this one, was a knee jerk reaction on my part. with exception to those of IXL8's persuasion, though i do udnerstand where he (?) is coming from. the people you described in your previous post, that we could take togander mountain and show a gun to, in the frist place probably wouldnt buy one. and if they did, and iw as the one who brought them there, personally i would firmly suggest some range time as soon and as often as they can do it. but i wouldnt tell them not to wear it on their belt. ( in this hypothetical situation)

it is their right.
as it is mine. and frankly Arizona is looking good right about now, though i love this state enough not to leave her when she needs me most. and that goes for all you guys that support this legistlation.

wasnt born here but i will die for her GOD BLESS TEXAS

 

[jsimmons]

Perhaps you should move to AZ. Personally I think people should be educated about the law, and the liabilities of carrying a weapon. AZ law permits the bad guys to carry as well, which will end up in shoot outs, between armed citizens with little knowledge of the consequences.

Texas may not meet with your approval, but it meets with mine.

I think you're completely missing the point. Existing gun laws don't in any way prevent the bad guys from carrying. They're bad guys - it's their nature to break the law. I think the AZ legislature has come to that realization, and have dutifully removed a pointless law from their books.

 

[jsimmons]

How do you make non gun owner unafraid of the gun owner?

Kill the non gun owner.

 

[IXLR8]

I should be able to carry a gun everywhere. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't. Actually, that's the way rights are supposed to work. It's not my burden to prove why I should be able to exercise them, it's your burden to show why I'm not responsible enough to do so.

Well although you and I know there is a big difference between you walking around with a gun, and me hypothetically speaking carrying around a grenade, or for arguments sake an atom bomb. You don't know me or the yield of my weapon, or what frame of mind I may be in. Would you be afraid? People unfamiliar with firearms may be just as afraid of your displayed gun, as you would be of my choice of displayed weapon. I am sure you are very proud of your weapon, are very skilled in it's operation, but there are just some places that it does not need to be displayed.

Now if you could change the perception of all of the people that are not threatening you, to make them feel at ease with your choice to carry and display a weapon, please do it. I don't know how to do it, perhaps you could inform me why you NEED to do this. There are a lot of things you can't do inside anymore, like bring your dog to the store, or smoke in a building, or drink and then drive. If you want to do any one of these things, or carry a gun wherever you want, then don't talk to me. I am not the one that is preventing you from doing it. Personally I have a libertarian point of view, you should be responsible for your own actions, unfortunately our current society does not share this view. You have to persuade everyone else.

 

[IXLR8]

maybe he can stay in texas and participate in working to make this already great state even better, and you can stay home with your frito pie and watch MASH, and cheer whenever hawkeye refuses to pick up a gun.

afterall they are dangerous.

---
after reading the rest of this post i had to add, that i agree wit most of the posts here. and the first part of this one, was a knee jerk reaction on my part. with exception to those of IXL8's persuasion, though i do udnerstand where he (?) is coming from. the people you described in your previous post, that we could take togander mountain and show a gun to, in the frist place probably wouldnt buy one. and if they did, and iw as the one who brought them there, personally i would firmly suggest some range time as soon and as often as they can do it. but i wouldnt tell them not to wear it on their belt. ( in this hypothetical situation)

it is their right.
as it is mine. and frankly Arizona is looking good right about now, though i love this state enough not to leave her when she needs me most. and that goes for all you guys that support this legistlation.

Thank you for your partial support! Believe it or not I am on the side of everyone that wants to own and carry or display a weapon. I am just trying to explain the view from the other side of the fence, and why we have not been successful up to this point.

However I would have to support strong laws for the misuse of these new freedoms. In a life threatening situation they should be used in a life ending way. There should never be an allowance for using them as leverage, or intimidation against others.

 

[IXLR8]

M. Sage said

Yes, it is. It's called playing by big boy rules. If one of these people does something stupid with a gun around me, I'll be the one putting them on the ground, one way or another. It's up to them to be responsible for their actions. It isn't up to you or me or (especially) the state to take care of that. It's up to them, and them alone.

I guess you are the new sheriff in town, what criteria are you going to use before "putting them on the ground"? What actions are irresponsible and subject to your need to police the situation?

Please, I am not trying to piss anyone off, I am just trying to make sense of your benchmark for right vs wrong...

Don't get mad at me. If you can support your argument, people will listen.

I will shut up after this post unless specifically addressed with a question. I am sorry for the thread hijack...

 

[matefrio]

Personally I have a libertarian point of view, you should be responsible for your own actions, unfortunately our current society does not share this view. You have to persuade everyone else.

Libertarian point of view isn't worried about what "the public" or "the laws" think or do. Libertarianism is advocacy for individual liberty despite what the majority think. You worry too much about how others would act, what others may do or how others may react when individual liberties are used to have any foundation of Libertarianism in your beliefs.

 

[megafatcat]

If you must open carry, load up your favorite long gun, sling it over your shoulder, and go! I do favor open carry of handguns. Blacks did not get recognition of their constitutional rights by worrying about the hand wringing of those who were more comfortable with blacks at the back of the bus.

 

[M. Sage]

Well although you and I know there is a big difference between you walking around with a gun, and me hypothetically speaking carrying around a grenade, or for arguments sake an atom bomb. You don't know me or the yield of my weapon, or what frame of mind I may be in. Would you be afraid? People unfamiliar with firearms may be just as afraid of your displayed gun, as you would be of my choice of displayed weapon. I am sure you are very proud of your weapon, are very skilled in it's operation, but there are just some places that it does not need to be displayed.

A: When did carrying a gun turn into walking around with a hydrogen bomb? To answer your question, I'd be more worried about how well shielded your device is than anything else. Death by radiation poisoning scares me a hell of a lot more than being instantly vaporized (which honestly scares me not at all).

B: Their "discomfort" is enough to infringe on my rights? Since when? There are people out there who are uncomfortable with women wearing anything that exposes skin. Should all women be forced to wear burkhas because some are "uncomfortable" with anything else? Seeing fat chicks wearing revealing clothes makes me uncomfortable, does that mean I get to ban fat chicks!?

Uncomfortable is not equal to injury. Injury is measurable. It's monetary and/or physical. Being uncomfortable with the sight of something is neither.

Now if you could change the perception of all of the people that are not threatening you, to make them feel at ease with your choice to carry and display a weapon, please do it.

I would if I could. Fortunately, other people's hang-ups aren't my responsibility. I'm responsible for me, they're responsible for them. Period.

I don't know how to do it, perhaps you could inform me why you NEED to do this.

You need to explain that request to me, because it's not making sense. It sounds like you're asking me to show you why I need to exercise a right, and that doesn't make a bit of sense. Might as well ask me why I need to rent a 1600 square foot house. Or why I need to drop f-bombs when I hurt myself.

If that's the question, the answer is simple - because I can. It harms nobody else for me to do so, so they have no right to tell me not to. The burden is not on the person exercising a right, it's on the people who want to stop that person from doing so. So how about you inform me as to why it should be illegal for me to do this.

There are a lot of things you can't do inside anymore, like bring your dog to the store, or smoke in a building, or drink and then drive. If you want to do any one of these things, or carry a gun wherever you want, then don't talk to me. I am not the one that is preventing you from doing it. Personally I have a libertarian point of view, you should be responsible for your own actions, unfortunately our current society does not share this view. You have to persuade everyone else.

That isn't a very libertarian point of view.

M. Sage said

I guess you are the new sheriff in town, what criteria are you going to use before "putting them on the ground"? What actions are irresponsible and subject to your need to police the situation?

Please, I am not trying to piss anyone off, I am just trying to make sense of your benchmark for right vs wrong...

Don't get mad at me. If you can support your argument, people will listen.

I will shut up after this post unless specifically addressed with a question. I am sorry for the thread hijack...

The criteria? Stupid with a gun = putting someone else in danger. I figured that would be obvious... Using a gun in a dangerous manner around me will get you yelled at, minimum.

Libertarian point of view isn't worried about what "the public" or "the laws" think or do. Libertarianism is advocacy for individual liberty despite what the majority think. You worry too much about how others would act, what others may do or how others may react when individual liberties are used to have any foundation of Libertarianism in your beliefs.

Exactly. That is entirely what I'm concerned with. If, in the words of Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", I don't give a damn if you do it. If it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg when I do it, then you've got no cause to tell me not to.

 

[Wolfwood]

If it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg when I do it, then you've got no cause to tell me not to.

awesome.
this is going in the quotes section.