Mississippi Gun Owners banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
JK..but I may
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqkVitwyfAJp24yVkQxi2ayn2XFwD9F4EE7O0
PHOENIX — Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people without a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The bill she signed Friday afternoon takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends. That likely will put the effective date in July or August.
"I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well," Brewer said in a statement.
Alaska and Vermont now do not require permits to carry concealed weapons.
By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.
Supporters say the bill promotes constitutional rights and allows people to protect themselves from criminals, while critics worry it will lead to more shootings as people with less training have fewer restrictions on carrying weapons.
Some police officials are concerned the law will lead to more accidental gun discharges from people untrained in firearm safety, or that shooters in stressful situations will accidentally strike innocent bystanders with stray bullets.
"I know a lot of 21 year olds; the maturity level is gravely concerning sometimes," said El Mirage Police Chief Mike Frazier, an Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police board member. "If you're going to be carrying a weapon you should know what the law is and how to use it."
However, the measure was supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who said their best friend on the streets is a law-abiding citizen equipped to protect themselves or others.
The police chiefs group initially opposed the bill but then took a neutral stance after some provisions were changed at their request. Brewer's office also participated in negotiations on changes to the bill.
Arizona's permissive gun laws gained national attention last year when a man openly carried a semiautomatic rifle to a Phoenix protest outside a speech by President Barack Obama.
Nearly all adults can already carry a weapon openly in Arizona, and supporters of looser laws argue that gun owners shouldn't face additional restrictions just because they want to hide the weapon.
Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
Forty-five other states require permits for hidden guns, and two states — Illinois and Wisconsin — prohibit them altogether.
Federal law requires anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer to undergo a background check, but that requirement does not apply to sales by individuals who aren't dealers. Arizona's law won't change that.
Under the Arizona legislation, people carrying a concealed weapon will be required to tell a police officer that if asked, and the officer can temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the person.
More than 154,000 people have permits to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona.
The bill acted on by Brewer was the first attempt to lift the permit requirement to reach an Arizona governor's desk.
Brewer's predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, in 2007 vetoed two related bills. One would have reduced penalties for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. The other would have allowed a person without a permit to carry a gun largely concealed as long as any part of it or its holster was visible.
Brewer in 2008 signed into law a bill allowing a person with a permit to take a gun into a restaurant or bar serving alcohol as long as the establishment doesn't prohibit it and the person isn't drinking alcohol. Napolitano vetoed a similar bill in 2005.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,261 Posts
That's always great news. Now you will see the liberal nuts in the media saying they did this to help scare off the illegals because now they will have to worry about being shot by the evil white man when they have their peaceful protest. :wallbash: :cen:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,803 Posts
This is good news. However, the mental and skills of some people that might carry scare me..........

Common Sense (IMHO) should require training to be allowed to carry. 8 hours of training (4 in classroom in the morning and 4 on the range in the afternoon).

The classroom portion should teach not only safe gun handling, but stance and grip and sight picture and trigger control, and most important.... the liability and responsiblity of carrying.

The live-fire on the range should be used to "re-teach" some items from the classroom. Plus the live-fire will show people their limits with a gun.

I for one don't want to be hit by a bullet fired by some YAHOO that pulled their gun, pointed it in the general direction and started pulling the trigger as fast as they can.................

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
My wife wants to move to AZ and this might help me to decide to also after my parents are gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Even if MS. doesn't go as far as AZ. we still need to lobby for legislation that eases restrictions on where we can carry and our law defining the meaning of "concealed" needs to be rewritten. IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
SubGunFan said:
This is good news. However, the mental and skills of some people that might carry scare me..........

Common Sense (IMHO) should require training to be allowed to carry. 8 hours of training (4 in classroom in the morning and 4 on the range in the afternoon).

The classroom portion should teach not only safe gun handling, but stance and grip and sight picture and trigger control, and most important.... the liability and responsiblity of carrying.

The live-fire on the range should be used to "re-teach" some items from the classroom. Plus the live-fire will show people their limits with a gun.

I for one don't want to be hit by a bullet fired by some YAHOO that pulled their gun, pointed it in the general direction and started pulling the trigger as fast as they can.................

.
Sub...I understand what you are saying. But seems like a slippery slope if we require classes for a right guaranteed by the constitution.
Uncle Ted agrees with me ha
[flash=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/v/LCHtw6WbbnM" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true[/flash]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
kowen1971 said:
Even if MS. doesn't go as far as AZ. we still need to lobby for legislation that eases restrictions on where we can carry and our law defining the meaning of "concealed" needs to be rewritten. IMO
yup
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,803 Posts
I think the "right to carry" carries the same responsibility (if not more) as a Drivers License. All you have to do is pass the tests to show you are not a "threat" to the general public because you were educated. I know, there are some STUPID-A** drivers out there with a valid drivers license..................

I don't mind paying a reasonable fee for the "right to carry". I just don't want to see "legal" carry without some training. Just buying a gun & ammo doesn't make anyone SAFE to carry.

For the record, I don't have a CWP.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
SubGunFan said:
I think the "right to carry" carries the same responsibility (if not more) as a Drivers License. All you have to do is pass the tests to show you are not a "threat" to the general public because you were educated. I know, there are some STUPID-A** drivers out there with a valid drivers license..................

I don't mind paying a reasonable fee for the "right to carry". I just don't want to see "legal" carry without some training. Just buying a gun & ammo doesn't make anyone SAFE to carry.

For the record, I don't have a CWP.

.
Again Sub. I hear ya and understand your concern. BUT the counter point would be driving is not a right it is a privilege and is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. SHould you have to take a class before you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure or have a trial by jury?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
I have to go with BigMike on this. I don't think there should be any restrictions. I do agree there would be a LOT of yahoos packing but there should also be a lot of PSA's pointing out the consequences of not being responsible if you carry and screwup. And just because there would be no required classes, there should still be classes offered and strongly suggested. That's just my :2c: worth!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,644 Posts
I really can see both sides of this issue .. don't know yet where I would stand. Don't really like the idea of just anyone having a gun on them without the common sense to use it responsibility ... however, I do treasure my freedoms and feel that if we waiver on just one of them - the rest will fall!! :thinking:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
captain-03 said:
I really can see both sides of this issue .. don't know yet where I would stand. Don't really like the idea of just anyone having a gun on them without the common sense to use it responsibility ... however, I do treasure my freedoms and feel that if we waiver on just one of them - the rest will fall!! :thinking:
the truth is that there are idiots carrying guns now. There are idiot ccw holders.

We cant let idiots limit our freedoms, but lets let our freedoms limit our idiots (somebody is going to get that) :gatlin: :lol3:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
BigMikeFromOlemiss said:
Volzfan said:
My wife wants to move to AZ and this might help me to decide to also after my parents are gone.
thats a long way from Orange country. Atleast you would be closer to Lane Kiffin hahaha
1st let me point out that "BIG ORANGE COUNTRY" is where ever I am !!!

2nd Why did you have to bring up LK???
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,803 Posts
BigMikeFromOlemiss said:
We cant let idiots limit our freedoms, but lets let our freedoms limit our idiots (somebody is going to get that)

BigMike..... That statement I LIKE ! ! ! And it is SO TRUE ! ! ! Current problem is..... too many idiots (Liberal DemocRATS) in DC. Hopefully in November things will change for the better.

Yes, bearing arms is a Right, not a prevledge. And a Right I enjoy on a daily basis. I guess my concern of yahoos/idiots pulling out their guns and spraying bullets before they think is something society will have to deal with if it becomes common place. We all risk our lives on the open road each day driving our vehicles.

On another tangent of this subject...... I feel there should be NO "no carry" zones. Not even bars (less maybe comm. jets). Schools are a tricky area. High school and below.... HELL NO for students. College.... OK if you "declare" to the school in advance.

I guess what I am "thinking" is......... First, I SUPPORT the RIGHT to Bear Arms. I support the prevledge to carry them on your person. The 2 things I don't want to see are................. 1. Many news stories telling of "bystanders hit by person shooting at thief". 2. "free carry" evolving into Open Carry (exposed holsters). I am not going to relate open carry to the Old West because I don't think the Old West was actually anything like Hollywood has shown it. Hollywood is FULL OF SH*T.... But that is a whole new subject..........


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
captain-03 said:
I really can see both sides of this issue .. don't know yet where I would stand. Don't really like the idea of just anyone having a gun on them without the common sense to use it responsibility ... however, I do treasure my freedoms and feel that if we waiver on just one of them - the rest will fall!! :thinking:
I have to agree with captain, I can see pros and cons of this issue. I keep thinking about Doug Bowser's story of the woman who pulled a loaded and cocked .38 from her purse and when Doug asked how long she had carried the weapon that way her reply was a couple of years. It seems she had cocked the pistol and didn't know how to lower the hammer. Talk about an accident looking for a place to happen. We all know there are plenty of people packing right now who are just as untrained as this woman. I still believe a valid permit should be required and training never hurt anyone. Most of us here probably received firearms training in the military or were taught safe gun handling by a father, grandfather, or some other adult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
I think the State should offer some kind of optional free class on firearm safety once a month, pay for it with Hunting license fees. Most of us did learn from parents, grandparents at a young age, but the people that didn't have that in their lives should still be able to protect themselves.
Education is the answer,not regulation. It's a slippery slope when you start answering WHO has the right, to limit your rights.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top