Thursday, May 3, 2012

The Travesty of Gun Laws in Arizona

Kellie Mejdrich Arizona Sonora News Service

I’m a 22-year-old woman who has never touched a gun in her life, but obtaining a concealed weapons permit in Arizona took me little more than a lunch break and $100.

That’s contrary to what many legislators and officials have said about the CCW process this season, as they’ve debated several pieces of legislation attempting to allow guns into more and more public buildings.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

26 comments:

  1. I am surprised that I am the first one to comment on this travesty. I simply find it hard to believe that none of the SGOM* beat me to the punch on this one. This is absolutely disgusting. Such a display of cavalier disregard for the law, either in it's letter or intent, is championed by the quoted article. Arizona has "ease of access" lawz for teh gunz, so that legitimate homedefenders (and malldefenders and taqueriadefenders, etc.,) can do their defendin' without havin to spend more than an hour in some stupid class learnin' crap that they already KNOW. They weren't legislated so that some smarmy college gal could make a mockery of the system while, probably, BREAKIN' THE LAW her ownself! Nobody could have foreseen this happening!!



    * Staunch Gunzloonzpalz of MurKKKa

    ReplyDelete
  2. You realize she doesn't need a gov permission slip at all, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon- In Arizona, you do need a license for conceal/carry. Otherwise it's open carry.

      Delete
    2. J.O.B., I think you're wrong about that. It's my understanding that the license is not needed for Constitutional Carry, as they call it. It serves for reciprocity in other states and various other "rights."

      Delete
    3. MikeB is correct.

      http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf

      Moonshine7102

      Delete
  3. "Anon- In Arizona, you do need a license for conceal/carry."

    Incorrect. No license is needed to carry concealed in AZ. Please do your homework before posting a response.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Democommie, you should read the article. She's a law-abiding citizen in a state that trusts such people. She followed the law. And J.O.B., yes, concealed carry in Arizona is now legal without a license. Her license will allow her to go to some other states with a concealed handgun.

    To everyone, this is the glory of the gun laws in Arizona. The key point here has been said time and again: Criminals don't apply for licenses. They just carry. Arizona respects its good citizens at least as much as its criminals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg- Just saw that. Didn't realize the law was changed from when I visited back in '07. Honestly, Arizona is 2000 miles away. I care more about my state, where you are even afforded the right to c/c. Even with a 1,4,8, hell, a 30 hour class.

      Delete
    2. where you are not even afforded the right

      Delete
    3. Yup, Illinois needs to catch up--better yet, it should do what Wisconsin did and jump straight into shall issue.

      Delete
    4. Greg, read the news a year and a half ago as well as today. AZ is a mess as a result of its lack of gun laws.

      Delete
    5. I did get that news and the more recent news. You take sensational incidents and turn them into wishes for more gun control, but you don't look at the data. Consider how often incidents like that happen--they're rare, in case you've forgotten. If guns are as bad as you imply, we all should be dead.

      Delete
  5. "To everyone, this is the glory of the gun laws in Arizona."

    To someone who's idiocy involves being armed to the teeth, at all times, everywhere--well, I can see where the "glory" part comes from in that comment. It really IS too bad that you didn't live in Bill Hickok's era, for both you and those who don't confuse the reality of a complex world with the simplicity of gunzloonz video gamez.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democommie, am I to conclude that you agree that criminals will carry without regard to the law?

      Delete
  6. What other Constitutional rights should require training before you are allowed to exercise them? We let any 18 year old vote regardless of their mental capacities. We let any one that wants to the option to speak out to whoever they can get to listen with no training required.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And yet none of Arizona's armed citizens went on a rampage yesterday. Prediction: none of Arizona's armed citizens will go on a rampage today, either. Bonus prediction: none of the armed citizens in my state will go on a rampage today.

    For anyone that doesn't understand, training a person to use a handgun -- especially a revolver which is extremely popular with women -- is exceedingly simple. You start with the simple rules of gun safety:
    (1) Every gun is loaded.
    (2) Always point the gun in a safe direction.
    (3) Know what is beyond your target.
    (4) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are going to shoot.

    Next, you tell them how to operate the revolver:
    (1) Point gun at target.
    (2) Pull trigger.

    That's it. The only "difficult" part is getting the person to really internalize, absorb, and consistently apply the gun safety rules ... and that isn't hard although it does take a concerted effort.

    The rest of it is trivial. Self-defense happens at contact distances. If you can point your finger at a person that is less than 6 feet away, you can point a revolver at them. If you can motion for someone to come over with your index finger, you can pull a trigger.

    What's the big danger to society?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Democommie, am I to conclude that you agree that criminals will carry without regard to the law?"

    WTF? please point to the comment I made that ever suggested otherwise? I have certainly said that limiting the number of undocumented gunz floatin'round will make it HARDER for teh crimnulz to get teh gunz--I'm fairly certain that your response to that is, "No, they won't, cuz, and,and,shutupthat'swhy!".

    "What other Constitutional rights should require training before you are allowed to exercise them? We let any 18 year old vote regardless of their mental capacities. We let any one that wants to the option to speak out to whoever they can get to listen with no training required."

    Gee, I'm actually glad you brought that up. Why do we limit hazzin' teh gunz to people above a certain age in MOST states--especially teh handcannonz? You do have to learn how to talk before you can exercise your right to free speech--a right that has all sorts of limits placed on its use. People can vote* without knowing a fucking thing about the candidates, witness the GOPeabaggers, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and a shitton of other moronz that are backed by you clownz. You should have brought up driving, too. Yeah, yeah, I know it's not a constitutional right but it's the one you guyz love to compare wit teh gunz when deaths, injuries, crimes and property damage are laid on teh gunzloonz indignorant cheerleading for unfettered hazzin' teh gunz. Of course, driving is not a right, so howscome it's still allowed?


    * 18 yo is not the cut-off for letting people who are stupid/delusional vote. There are plent of them in the dotage and middle age as well. Also, the 18 yo voting thing? You know that is only about 40 years old, yes? See, the thing is--shit changes. I know you guyz hate hearing it, but the U.S. is not a warzone where you're subject to imminent attack at all times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democommie, you said nothing to challenge my comment that criminals carry guns without bothering to get a license. You challenge me on just about every point of disagreement, so I figured you were agreeing with me there.

      You are aware that the change in voting age was down, not up, right? It used to be twenty-one, until young men being drafted insisted that they should be able to vote for the politicians who were going to send them off to war. In other words, that was a move to increase freedom, not diminish it.

      Delete
  9. You know what is most interesting, the gal in the photo is smiling. Imagine that: a person is smiling about the fact that law enforcement will not harass her if she is armed in public.

    I wonder how many people smile in states like Illinois or Hawaii every time they think about how law enforcement will arrest them if they are armed in public?

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's no surprise.

    After all, NRA member and Neo-Nazi mass murderer JT Ready was able to teach CCW courses in AZ despite having a criminal record, a bad conduct discharge from the Marines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Loughner and Ready, two shining examples of Arizona gun laws at work.

      Delete
    2. Yes, two shining examples of how law enforcement cannot protect any citizen in public from criminals like those douche bags.

      Delete
  11. "Democommie, you said nothing to challenge my comment that criminals carry guns without bothering to get a license. You challenge me on just about every point of disagreement, so I figured you were agreeing with me there."

    Can you even read the language that you teach? Why would I challenge your comment? You and your gunzloonzpalz keep pushing the LIE that I and others who are not lipquiverinly insecure and need the gunz to feel good about ourselves are blind to the reality of criminal behavior. We see plenty of it--and a fair amount of it is being engaged in by gunzloonz.

    "You are aware that the change in voting age was down, not up, right? It used to be twenty-one, until young men being drafted insisted that they should be able to vote for the politicians who were going to send them off to war. In other words, that was a move to increase freedom, not diminish it."

    How do you manage to dress yourself and show up for work?

    I was in that demographic of non-voting age, but draftable, young men in 1968. Clearly you see what you think is an error in my logic and jump right into the shit. The point is that the suffrage of 18-21 yo was made legal in 1971--183 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. In 1788, when the Constitution was ratified, the average longevity of U.S. male citizen was less than 38 years (according to the table, here--http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us). It is also true that ONLY men, FREE, WHITE, PROPERTY OWNING MEN had the franchise. Women, the unlanded, non-whites and others were not afforded the franchise until much later. It is a feature of a durable and living U.S. Constitution that, as conditions in the nation change, so to does the Constitution. That is why there are so many Amendments. Be happy that the document isn't cast in stone, as you and your gunzloonzpalz seem to think that the 2nd Amendment is. If it was you wouldn't likely be allowed to vote unless you were a property owner--and the other property owners, they would see what they could do about limiting the voting pool.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DC - you completely missed Greg's point as well. In general, the Constitution has been Amended such that freedoms have been expanded. The one notable exception being prohibition which was later repealed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "DC - you completely missed Greg's point as well. In general, the Constitution has been Amended such that freedoms have been expanded. The one notable exception being prohibition which was later repealed."

    Really? You think I'm not aware of the franchise being extended? Sorry, you need to learn to read for comprehension, too.

    My point was and IS, that the process of amending the U.S. Constitution is extraordinarily difficult at any time, but with the current deliberate political obstructionism being engaged in by the ReiKKKwingers, it's essentially impossible to change. That's all to the good for the gunzloonz who prefer to chip away at the state level (much like their ideological bedfellows from the religious right) and push their agenda on a largely disinterested populace*


    * Largely disinterested because they are distracted by the process of trying to make a living and raise their families. Most people I know are not sanguine about the prospect of everyone being heeled at the supermarket or carwash. Gunzloonz will not be satisfied until they have managed to insinuate gunz into every single home, public place (including the halls of congress, the SCotUS, churches, daycares, hospitals and any other location where their insecurity and paranoia say they MUST be armed and vigilant. I'll be dead before that happens (not in the Teddy Teabag vaguely threatening sortaway--I just don't think it will happen in the next 20 years). Once they've accomplished those lofty goals they'll be looking to arm anyone who has enough strength to cock the hammer and rack the slide--what a wonderful world it will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. conflation, conflation, conflation

      I don't know anyone nor have I ever heard anyone suggest that every citizen be armed. I imagine someone, somewhere has said that. The point is that armed citizens are not advocating to arm every citizen. They are advocating every citizen's right to be armed for the purpose of defending themselves, their families, and if need be, their community and country.

      Delete