Arizona House approves concealed carry bill

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you believe in the freedom to bear arms, than having to obtain a "license" flies in the face of it.

I believe in it, just that the constitution doesn't specify that as a blank check. If the FF wanted that they would have just made the statement: "The right to bear arms shall never be abridged." They didn't, they made reference to militias and well regulation. Of course we can just ignore parts and the rest is clear.

It must be hard thinking you're knowledgeable in so many areas and falling short in all of them. Failing to understand definitions like militia or regulated doesn't serve you well.

There's really one big problem with removing any licensing on the CCW - you diminish the ability to measure success. We know that CCW permit holders are highly law abiding citizens, and with millions in the set, it's quite compelling, and quite devastating to Brady lies. But with no records of how many carriers there would be, you now go back to an environment where the NRA and the Brady fucks can make up data to progress their agendas.

>>>>>>It must be hard thinking you're knowledgeable in so many areas and falling short in all of them.

Last time I returned that volley I was warned and the other guy wasn't; I guess this, "rule thing" is also hard to grasp.

>>>>>>>Failing to understand definitions like militia or regulated doesn't serve you well.

For teh first time ever the term, "well regulated" (with or w/o the hyphen) was interpreted to mean, "well maintained" as in the slides greased. A very convenient interpretation that wasn't made for well over 200 years, then suddenly brought in; yet the people who support that ridiculous interpretation also hate the living constitution, another selective convenience.

And a militia back in the 1700's had nothing to do with one today, so I believe it is my understanding of the FF that is correct.

>>>>>>>>>There's really one big problem with removing any licensing on the CCW - you diminish the ability to measure success.

Wait, wait, wait, the US Constipation is (insert hillbilly voice; AKA Republcian voice) what I fought and died fer. This Constipation is not sum exspermint, it's the real deal; how can we use it as some survey to measure success. Get it? You can't clammer; Const, Const, Const and then say.......you diminish the ability to measure success. Unless you say teh 2nd isn't what gives us the right to carry arms unabridged.

>>>>>>>We know that CCW permit holders are highly law abiding citizens,...

Or really good at being criminals. Remember, cop inductees are also law abiders at one point.

>>>>>>>>>But with no records of how many carriers there would be, you now go back to an environment where the NRA and the Brady fucks can make up data to progress their agendas.

So what, most data is skewed in the light that the purveyor wishes it to be. You can objectively extrapolate data, but data becomes adversary in many cases. Is this about data or the US Const, State Const or states rights to pass and enforce their own laws? Or is it a big survey game?

You can't keep jumping out accross these lines of states rights, US Const, STate COnst, etc..... or can you?

[funjumper101 15]

It sure is a good thing that anyone can carry guns around in Arizona. It certainly promotes public safety.

Published 4/10/10

PHOENIX — Authorities said a Surprise man has been arrested on suspicion of endangerment when the gun he was carrying discharged inside a Walmart in El Mirage. El Mirage police said the 30-year-old man entered the store around 1 a.m. Thursday and witnesses said he repeatedly fidgeted with a holstered semi-automatic pistol.

When he went to a counter to pay for a video game, witnesses said he removed the gun from the holster — causing the magazine to come loose and fall to the floor. They said he reinserted the magazine and continued manipulating the gun when it fired, sending one bullet into the ceiling.

Police said no injuries were reported. He was booked into the downtown Phoenix jail on six counts of endangerment and firing a weapon in city limits.

[kelpdiver 2]

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

[Andy9o8 2]

I'll just be happy if I can get a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and this thing which tells time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It sure is a good thing that anyone can carry guns around in Arizona. It certainly promotes public safety.

Published 4/10/10

PHOENIX — Authorities said a Surprise man has been arrested on suspicion of endangerment when the gun he was carrying discharged inside a Walmart in El Mirage. El Mirage police said the 30-year-old man entered the store around 1 a.m. Thursday and witnesses said he repeatedly fidgeted with a holstered semi-automatic pistol.

When he went to a counter to pay for a video game, witnesses said he removed the gun from the holster — causing the magazine to come loose and fall to the floor. They said he reinserted the magazine and continued manipulating the gun when it fired, sending one bullet into the ceiling.

Police said no injuries were reported. He was booked into the downtown Phoenix jail on six counts of endangerment and firing a weapon in city limits.

What the story doesn't say is that he was a P.D. washout turned detention officer, Arpaio's finest. A real Barney Fife. Altho I'm for the passage, I wouldn't carry one of my arms concealed unless I had a need. I don't have a CCW. A month ago I saw an idiot 20 YO kjid wearing a Ruger P85 (POS 9mm throw away) on his hip. We were in a grocery store. It made all uncomfortable. All it does is to draw police attention, criminals attention and make most feel, "why the fuck do you need it?"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I hope that it passes! In other positive CCW info Kansas is a step closer to allowing CCW in colleges! Can you imagine that you could defend yourself if a shooter came to your campus?

A bunch of irrational kids in the peak of hormone production, competing for grades, a spot on the team and that hot bitch over there? I can't think of a better place to have everyone armed. School policy won't allow that; I GUARANTEE IT. Which means an idiot carrying one can't be arrested, just removed for good.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I hope that it passes! In other positive CCW info Kansas is a step closer to allowing CCW in colleges! Can you imagine that you could defend yourself if a shooter came to your campus?

Having myself lived in college dorms, filled with immature 18-20 year olds living cheek-by-jowl, and seen the incredible personality conflicts and sometimes physical fights - fueled by anger, hatred, dorm politics, sex, jealousy, alcohol, drugs, racial tensions, stud hormones, PMS, etc. - that frequently occur in them, I can't imagine a worse place to allow guns.

There's a reason why, for example, many bars, even in very gun-friendly states, don't allow guns on the premises. Same thing holds true for college dorms. And no, I have no interest in parsing the semantics of the analogy.

[Halfpastniner 0]

Quote

Quote

It sure is a good thing that anyone can carry guns around in Arizona. It certainly promotes public safety.

Published 4/10/10

PHOENIX — Authorities said a Surprise man has been arrested on suspicion of endangerment when the gun he was carrying discharged inside a Walmart in El Mirage. El Mirage police said the 30-year-old man entered the store around 1 a.m. Thursday and witnesses said he repeatedly fidgeted with a holstered semi-automatic pistol.

When he went to a counter to pay for a video game, witnesses said he removed the gun from the holster — causing the magazine to come loose and fall to the floor. They said he reinserted the magazine and continued manipulating the gun when it fired, sending one bullet into the ceiling.

Police said no injuries were reported. He was booked into the downtown Phoenix jail on six counts of endangerment and firing a weapon in city limits.

What the story doesn't say is that he was a P.D. washout turned detention officer, Arpaio's finest. A real Barney Fife. Altho I'm for the passage, I wouldn't carry one of my arms concealed unless I had a need. I don't have a CCW. A month ago I saw an idiot 20 YO kjid wearing a Ruger P85 (POS 9mm throw away) on his hip. We were in a grocery store. It made all uncomfortable. All it does is to draw police attention, criminals attention and make most feel, "why the fuck do you need it?"

True, but that is open carrying, which I agree is a really bad idea. If everyone can see you are carrying a gun, it makes other people very nervous, and you become a target. I'm sure there are many people out there who could take a gun off my hip and kill me before I turn around. There is no reason to open carry out in public, leave that for the police.

I much prefer that many people are carrying, but nobody knows who is. If the bad guys know who has a gun, it really takes away the best advantage that citizens have.

BASE 1384

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc.

Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It sure is a good thing that anyone can carry guns around in Arizona. It certainly promotes public safety.

Published 4/10/10

PHOENIX — Authorities said a Surprise man has been arrested on suspicion of endangerment when the gun he was carrying discharged inside a Walmart in El Mirage. El Mirage police said the 30-year-old man entered the store around 1 a.m. Thursday and witnesses said he repeatedly fidgeted with a holstered semi-automatic pistol.

When he went to a counter to pay for a video game, witnesses said he removed the gun from the holster — causing the magazine to come loose and fall to the floor. They said he reinserted the magazine and continued manipulating the gun when it fired, sending one bullet into the ceiling.

Police said no injuries were reported. He was booked into the downtown Phoenix jail on six counts of endangerment and firing a weapon in city limits.

What the story doesn't say is that he was a P.D. washout turned detention officer, Arpaio's finest. A real Barney Fife. Altho I'm for the passage, I wouldn't carry one of my arms concealed unless I had a need. I don't have a CCW. A month ago I saw an idiot 20 YO kjid wearing a Ruger P85 (POS 9mm throw away) on his hip. We were in a grocery store. It made all uncomfortable. All it does is to draw police attention, criminals attention and make most feel, "why the fuck do you need it?"

True, but that is open carrying, which I agree is a really bad idea. If everyone can see you are carrying a gun, it makes other people very nervous, and you become a target. I'm sure there are many people out there who could take a gun off my hip and kill me before I turn around. There is no reason to open carry out in public, leave that for the police.

I much prefer that many people are carrying, but nobody knows who is. If the bad guys know who has a gun, it really takes away the best advantage that citizens have.

I'm for the signing of this law, even though it may or may not be a good idea. Basically, nothing will change, if a person feels they neeed to carry a gun, they will get a CCW or just do it w/o that. I don't think a thing will be different pre-law vs post.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc.

Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

Even tho I'm for the passage/signing of the law, good point.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OH well, I'm sure a convicted FELON wanting to buy a gun would NEVER do anything ILLEGAL.

Excellent. You've just summed up the reason most laws restricting firearms are useless at preventing crime.

Same applies to laws against bank robbery (Bank robbers ignore them), rape (rapists ignore them), kidnapping (kidnappers ignore them), murder (murderers ignore them), fraud (con-men ignore them) and the list can go on and on.

So you are really arguing for no laws at all.

Wow. You once again prove your ignorance or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Laws are not created as a deterrent. They are created so that law enforcement and the courts can deal with criminals after the fact.

If laws were a deterrent to all people, we would not have any crime. Luckily we have laws that are used to deal with the people that choose not to follow the laws.

Edit to ad: There are people that believe that by passing a law it will prevent people from breaking that law. They are sadly mistaken and living in a fantasy world. Name one law on the books no one has ever broken?

You are seriously missing the point, as usual.

Nope. Not at all. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. In many cases just the opposite.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

True, but that is open carrying, which I agree is a really bad idea. If everyone can see you are carrying a gun, it makes other people very nervous, and you become a target. I'm sure there are many people out there who could take a gun off my hip and kill me before I turn around.

One of the main reasons I'll never open carry is the inaccessibility of the firearm (that's right, inaccessibility). If I were to open carry, I would be using a retention holster, much like officers use to prevent just that from happening. Considering I don't have the time to train as frequently as they do, (or should) so that the extra actions of removing a weapon from a retention holster become second nature, I'll stick with concealed carry.

--
Rob

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc.

Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

Driving is a privilidge not a right.

That's why there is no self-incrimination protection for drunk drivers (among other differences).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rhaig 0]

Quote

That's why there is no self-incrimination protection for drunk drivers (among other differences).

sure there is.

failing to blow usually results in the suspension of your drivers license though as that was the agreement you entered into with your state when you got a license to drive on public roads. This of course differs state-to-state. In TX, there is an administrative hearing scheduled within 90 days where it is determined what happens to your drivers license.

That, however, does not constitute a lack of self-incrimination protection.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc.

Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

Driving is a privilidge not a right.

That's why there is no self-incrimination protection for drunk drivers (among other differences).

Yes there is. If it's criminal, then there is protection against self-incrim.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

failing to blow usually results in the suspension of your drivers license though as that was the agreement you entered into with your state when you got a license to drive on public roads.

Implied consent is old hat. Now, in Nazimerica, they get a telephonic warrant and slam your ass to the ground by the local finest and forcibly draw blood.

Quote

This of course differs state-to-state. In TX, there is an administrative hearing scheduled within 90 days where it is determined what happens to your drivers license.

The Nazi red(neck) states just punk your ass and draw blood, that admin stuff is for pussies, so they say.

Quote

That, however, does not constitute a lack of self-incrimination privilege.

I couild be semantic and say protection, as you did with money vs income, but yes, you have a priv/protection against self-incrim in any CRIMINAL matter.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

That's why there is no self-incrimination protection for drunk drivers (among other differences).

sure there is.

failing to blow usually results in the suspension of your drivers license though as that was the agreement you entered into with your state when you got a license to drive on public roads. This of course differs state-to-state. In TX, there is an administrative hearing scheduled within 90 days where it is determined what happens to your drivers license.

That, however, does not constitute a lack of self-incrimination privilege.

Correct. Failing to blow means you lose your driving priviliges. You can't claim "self-incrimination" for OWI and continue to drive (the driving part is seperate from the criminal aspect of the OWI).

The courts have held that driving isn't a right.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I couild be semantic and say protection, as you did with money vs income, but yes, you have a priv/protection against self-incrim in any CRIMINAL matter.

wow... I really struck a nerve with that didn't I.

In any case, I swapped the terms while typing them. Will edit to fix. Thanks for pointing it out, even in such an asinine manner.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Implied consent is old hat. Now, in Nazimerica, they get a telephonic warrant and slam your ass to the ground by the local finest and forcibly draw blood.

offering physical resistance to a blood draw is silly. It will only end up in injuries. A verbal denial of permission is all that's required. The judge will decide if it's usable or not. If they had a warrant then surely it will be.

Quote

The Nazi red(neck) states just punk your ass and draw blood, that admin stuff is for pussies, so they say.

they started doing almost that in Austin last fall at halloween. There was enough of an uproar that at new years, they had a judge on call to write the warrant. Still stinks that they did it that way, but at least they set some conditions under which they'd make the call as opposed to just doing it without a warrant.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc.

Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

Driving is a privilidge not a right.

That's why there is no self-incrimination protection for
drunk drivers (among other differences).

Gun ownership is not an absolute right (See Heller decision) and some people (e.g. felons) are not entitled to that right. So some rules are necessary to ensure that only those entitled to the right can exercise it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

no one was injured.

And he's now being charged. No different than a reckless driver or a drunk driver.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc.

Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

The similarity is that they are all examples of people acting irresponsibly. And laws already exist to punish people for doing so.

I think you're confused about which ones are more regulated, too.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Having myself lived in college dorms, filled with immature 18-20 year olds living cheek-by-jowl, and seen the incredible personality conflicts and sometimes physical fights - fueled by anger, hatred, dorm politics, sex, jealousy, alcohol, drugs, racial tensions, stud hormones, PMS, etc. - that frequently occur in them, I can't imagine a worse place to allow guns.

You and Lucky both post about 20 year olds. You are aware, no, that you have to be 21 to buy and own a handgun? At my school, no one was living in the dorms after the first year.

In any event, we do seem perfectly willing to let 18 yo's fight for our country. Apparently they have enough maturity then.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I couild be semantic and say protection, as you did with money vs income, but yes, you have a priv/protection against self-incrim in any CRIMINAL matter.

wow... I really struck a nerve with that didn't I.

In any case, I swapped the terms while typing them. Will edit to fix. Thanks for pointing it out, even in such an asinine manner.

wow... I really struck a nerve with that didn't I.

anf then...

Thanks for pointing it out, even in such an asinine manner.


Who struck a nerve??? All I'm saying is that I'm not being particular, unless we are into a deep issue where specifics are important, I get the sum of what you're saying, you trying to demand it's "income" and not "money" is that kind of semantics that I won't bow to. Geez, I misspelled, "could" and no one has corrected it, great. You shoudl have dealt withthe issue of MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE rather than try to divert the argument to that of, "do you mean money or do you mean income?" SAME THING.

No need to edit, we are not grammar Nazis here, other than Ron.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

offering physical resistance to a blood draw is silly.

The issue is not the resistance, it's the forcible part. And the stories I get from coworkers indicate that there is no resistance given, the cops do this as preemptive protocol.

You should not resist the cops, but the cops/courts should not be so Nazi as to search your body for evidence in DUI cases where no bodily or property damage is present. This is teh issue ypou want to avoid.

Quote

There was enough of an uproar that at new years, they had a judge on call to write the warrant. Still stinks that they did it that way, but at least they set some conditions under which they'd make the call as opposed to just doing it without a warrant.

I see, breaching your body's membranes is ok so long as a judge OPK's it? Now I see . I find it unconscionable to poke a needle into someone w/o consent for a simple DUI suspect case. Now if there are injuries, esp fatalities, do it now. Ity's where we want to place teh bar, the true Americans, the ones who claim to represent freedom, support these practices. The silly liberal side who apparently don't want freedoms reject the idea that the gov can forcibly hold a person down while blood is drawn. I get your side's interpretation of freedom and it stinks as much as it did before.

Like I said, redneck states are more likely to do it than those horrible liberal states. Nazizona does it, obviously NaziTexas does it. I don't have a list of the states that do that, but I bet they're grouped in the south. And I don't drink, haven't for years, never really did drink much. So I'm not defending drunks everywhere, I'm against extreme actions in the pursuit of evidence for cases where there was no ultimatee harm done. That said, I deplore drunk drivers, I'm just not willing to have any suspect probed for evidence.