Arizona's Other New Law

[cuate]

I'm not entering that p------ match, Texas vs. Arizona's carry laws...I like what we have but would like to see CHL holders able to carry open legally. I doubt that I would ever carry openly and it might tend to telegraph something to the zombies, but concealed......They have no idea that deadly danger exists. I had rather not have to kill some criminal trash because of all the paper work and rigamerol but I can and will if need be, a proper mindset. I don't go where the trash live and hang out, nor rub shoulders with them knowingly, frequent their type places and I love my close neighbors and do not aggravate nor agitate them. They are of my choosing out here in the boonies.....they think and I think alike...Beware zombies, you are not welcome !

 

[M. Sage]

I rest my case. Some instruction IS necessary, at least according to the previous 3 replies. It is just a matter of whom and how much...

This doesn't prove your case for a training requirement. It does help prove that responsible people will find it.

Or are you saying there should be training requirements like the ones I suggested to exercise your other freedoms?

 

[matefrio]

This doesn't prove your case for a training requirement. It does help prove that responsible people will find it.

Or are you saying there should be training requirements like the ones I suggested to exercise your other freedoms?

IXLR8 wants some sort of standard training and government accreditation before anyone may be allowed to carry a gun. This is due to some fear that there are enough idiots out there that it is not safe to allow gun owners out of the gun store or their homes with a loaded weapon without such assurances.

He imagines some sort of bloodbath, shootings in the streets, neighbor killing neighbor unless big brother regulates open or concealed carry mandating lessons and practical learning.

 

[IXLR8]

IXLR8 wants some sort of standard training and government accreditation before anyone may be allowed to carry a gun. This is due to some fear that there are enough idiots out there that it is not safe to allow gun owners out of the gun store or their homes with a loaded weapon without such assurances.

He imagines some sort of bloodbath, shootings in the streets, neighbor killing neighbor unless big brother regulates open or concealed carry mandating lessons and practical learning.

I can reply for myself. None of what you stated is correct, nor are they my point of view. There was no mention of any bloodbath in anything that I said.
All I said is that it is irresponsible to give anyone guns and ammunition that does not have the capacity to safely transport it. Trust me, those people do exist. My question has always been, what is the minimum requirement ? Should they have to pass a background check? Or should you just go to the 7-11 and buy an Icee and a M1911, with a side of ammo.

If you choose the 7-11, I am OK with that, if you can tell me that this in any way benefits society.

If the most ruthless violent criminal imaginable, bought a pistol in a FTF, and began carrying it as a sidearm. Would that be alright with you? How could you tell that person from any other person carrying a gun? Do we need to know if that person should or should not be carrying a sidearm?

Apparently that is a real scenario that our troops overseas do witness every single day. No one knows who the bad guys are...

 

[Fisherman777]

If the most ruthless violent criminal imaginable, bought a pistol in a FTF, and began carrying it as a sidearm. Would that be alright with you? How could you tell that person from any other person carrying a gun? Do we need to know if that person should or should not be carrying a sidearm?

They already do that. The bad guys don't care about the law. That's what we've been trying to tell you. Now how does it benefit society to hamstring the honest citizens? I don't get that. We're not talking about the most ruthless violent criminals imaginable. We're talking about us, the avarage American Joe. I have no problem with any non-criminal carrying a sidearm openly or concealed. No problem at all.

Punish the criminals, not the citizens.

 

[matefrio]

If you choose the 7-11, I am OK with that, if you can tell me that this in any way benefits society.

I believe my comments do summarize your feelings although I admit you didn't say "bloodbath" you did say " which will end up in shoot outs, between armed citizens with little knowledge of the consequences." The remainder of your statements are as I summarized. Fox news just reminded me : "In 1995, critics foresaw shootouts at every traffic light."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.

There is nothing ambiguous about “shall not be infringed.”

You don't take a pen away from someone who can't spell or doesn't have correct grammar.

You need to look up natural rights or moral rights or unalienable rights and compare them to legal rights.

You seem to gloss over that a legal gun owner can carry in their car and how that makes you feel and that two other states Alaska and Vermont have had unregulated concealed carry of guns for a long time without any issues. Texas is one of the 9 or so states out of 50 that don't allow some sort of open carry and there has been few news worthy events.

(Yellow) Gold Star Open Carry State (Orange) Open Carry Friendly State (Green) Licensed Open Carry State (Red) Non Permissive Open Carry State (Gray) Rural Open Carry State

 

[Texan2]

If you choose the 7-11, I am OK with that, if you can tell me that this in any way benefits society.

In a free society we don't exercise our rights only when they "benefit society", its the beauty of living in the United States.
Your above quote sounds very Marxist.

 

[M. Sage]

In a free society we don't exercise our rights only when they "benefit society", its the beauty of living in the United States.
Your above quote sounds very Marxist.

Statist at best! That post is a hit in the X ring, dead center.

My rights don't exist to benefit society (though society does benefit from my exercise of them in most cases), society exists to benefit the rights of the individual.

 

[IXLR8]

Texas is one of the 9 or so states out of 50 that don't allow some sort of open carry and there has been few news worthy events.

I was not aware of this statistic. If they can do it, why can't we.

In Wikipedia it says:
Prohibited persons - people prohibited by law from carrying a firearm. Typical examples are minors, felons, those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, those found to be addicted to alcohol or drugs, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Do you agree with these restrictions?

 

[matefrio]

I was not aware of this statistic. If they can do it, why can't we.

In Wikipedia it says:
Prohibited persons - people prohibited by law from carrying a firearm. Typical examples are minors, felons, those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, those found to be addicted to alcohol or drugs, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Do you agree with these restrictions?

Yes, although I think it should be much easier to have your record cleaned or expunged after a time of probation for most offenses. Any less and one doesn't recognize the in the frailty of human nature or forgiveness\repentance is possible.

The current system is more of a debtors prison when after a person is a convicted felon they have very few avenues to earn back their good standing in society and gain back rights.

 

[Texan2]

Prohibited persons - people prohibited by law from carrying a firearm. Typical examples are minors, felons, those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, those found to be addicted to alcohol or drugs, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Do you agree with these restrictions?

I have no issues with these controls.

 

[matefrio]

That said I don't see a need to carry around a piece of paper stating I am not a minor, felon, convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, addicted to alcohol or drugs, and involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

 

[Texan2]

That said I don't see a need to carry around a piece of paper stating I am not a minor, felon, convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, addicted to alcohol or drugs, and involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

The legislature does...

 

[IXLR8]

That said I don't see a need to carry around a piece of paper stating I am not a minor, felon, convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, addicted to alcohol or drugs, and involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

How about abiding by these laws, and 5 years of no violations returns your right to carry? I did not make them up, Wiki says that these are typical for states allowing open carry.

I don't make the laws, and personally don;t care either way, but I do abide by requirements imposed on me. My previous comments were never my viewpoint, I just tried, apparently unsuccessfully to try to illustrate why other uneducated people may find an unregulated open carry distasteful.

I must be a glutton for punishment...

 

[M. Sage]

Those are not only typical restrictions on open carry, almost all of them are federal restrictions on mere possession of a firearm. I agree with most, except the misdemeanor DV charge. Misdemeanor is too low a standard.

That said I don't see a need to carry around a piece of paper stating I am not a minor, felon, convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, addicted to alcohol or drugs, and involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

If anything, we should do it the other way around...

How backwards is that? We punish the good people by forcing them to prove that they're the good ones, and the bad ones walk around without that identifier...

 

[TheDan]

...Or should you just go to the 7-11 and buy an Icee and a M1911, with a side of ammo.

If you choose the 7-11, I am OK with that, if you can tell me that this in any way benefits society.

I'll go with the 7-11 option. As you said earlier(probably sarcastically...), the issues would be self correcting. How would it benefit society? Well the exceptionally negligent ones would end up shoot themselves, so that'd clean up the gene pool a bit...

 

[Wolfwood]

I'll go with the 7-11 option. As you said earlier(probably sarcastically...), the issues would be self correcting. How would it benefit society? Well the exceptionally negligent ones would end up shoot themselves, so that'd clean up the gene pool a bit...

heheh
nice.

 

[matefrio]

I'll go with the 7-11 option. As you said earlier(probably sarcastically...), the issues would be self correcting. How would it benefit society? Well the exceptionally negligent ones would end up shoot themselves, so that'd clean up the gene pool a bit...

I think more good people will have guns than bad and things will be about the same just different.

 

[jsimmons]

I have no issues with these controls.

But those controls don't work. Kids get guns. Felons get guns (and the kids that got guns are going to be felons when they turn 18). Their nature is that they don't care about controls. The way the system works (or doesn't work, depending on how you look at it) makes these controls absurd and pointless.

 

[KAK]

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.

Dont kid yourself, Texas law is about revenue not proper training. You just sounded like an anti. Just sayin.