I like what cdwolf says, and I would even go a bit farther and say to let the NRA or the GOA do the training class on a state by state basis. That way you get the best possible (gun friendly) training as well as those who might not ever get involved with a gun rights organization would be at least introduced to one.cdwolf said:
Im moving to Arizona!!!!!!
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.
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.
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
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][/quote]
I have seen this to be a big problem in States that require training. In Louisiana a class can cost $150-200. I have friends in Ohio and their CCW classes are sometimes $300.00. Yes, there are some people with training credentials that charge an arm and a leg for their classes when training is required by the State.
The Southwest Gun Club in McComb conducts personal Protection in the Home classes. We charge $50 for the class and include the use of the firearms and ammunition used in the class. We have instructors that have the credentials to teach the class for the issuance of the CCW in Louisiana.
When I was in Arizona last Spring, a lot of folks were carrying heat on their hip. No problems were observed with this custom. An armed society is a polite society.
Doug
Uncle Ted agrees with me ha
[flash=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/v/LCHtw6WbbnM" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true[/flash][/quote]
I have seen this to be a big problem in States that require training. In Louisiana a class can cost $150-200. I have friends in Ohio and their CCW classes are sometimes $300.00. Yes, there are some people with training credentials that charge an arm and a leg for their classes when training is required by the State.
The Southwest Gun Club in McComb conducts personal Protection in the Home classes. We charge $50 for the class and include the use of the firearms and ammunition used in the class. We have instructors that have the credentials to teach the class for the issuance of the CCW in Louisiana.
When I was in Arizona last Spring, a lot of folks were carrying heat on their hip. No problems were observed with this custom. An armed society is a polite society.
Doug
Blood will not run in the streets by allowing those without permits to carry. The antis cried the same thing when CCW first came around and it hasn't happened.
And please don't compare guns to cars. Cars are very dangerous and you aren't required to take a class to operate them in most states. Just apply and take a stupid test. Once we allow guns to be treated like cars we will have to register are guns and the EPA will enforce caliber limitations to restrict the amount of carbon being emitted into the air.
I think we should have a test for voters before we have a test for the carrying of firearms. A bunch of idiots with votes is far more dangerous to me and my freedoms than a bunch of idiots with guns.
My test would look like this, only be administered in english, and the only people it could be read to are the blind:
Did you pay a net income tax to the government of at least $1? (gross taxes paid minus all public assistance or other government handouts.)
We can't allow those who consume the more resources than they contribute to continue to decide how much the rest of us will pay them.
Also the fact that you are required to have a permit to carry doesn't mean the idiot you are afraid of will actually get one before carrying.
And please don't compare guns to cars. Cars are very dangerous and you aren't required to take a class to operate them in most states. Just apply and take a stupid test. Once we allow guns to be treated like cars we will have to register are guns and the EPA will enforce caliber limitations to restrict the amount of carbon being emitted into the air.
I think we should have a test for voters before we have a test for the carrying of firearms. A bunch of idiots with votes is far more dangerous to me and my freedoms than a bunch of idiots with guns.
My test would look like this, only be administered in english, and the only people it could be read to are the blind:
Did you pay a net income tax to the government of at least $1? (gross taxes paid minus all public assistance or other government handouts.)
We can't allow those who consume the more resources than they contribute to continue to decide how much the rest of us will pay them.
Also the fact that you are required to have a permit to carry doesn't mean the idiot you are afraid of will actually get one before carrying.
Perhaps the 2nd Amendment is a right but the gun is just a tool. Citizens will still need to know the letter of the law and the hows,whys and safe use of the gun. Just like you take drivers ed to drive, you should take a basic gun and legal class as a responsible citizen. 21 y/o people vote, drive and are usually the first to go to battle. They deserve the very rights they put their lives on the line for. They just need a little guidance and training, as much as older little ole ladies...
Love it!! AGREE 100%vranasaurus said:..I think we should have a test for voters before we have a test for the carrying of firearms. A bunch of idiots with votes is far more dangerous to me and my freedoms than a bunch of idiots with guns.
I don't agree with your comments. Where in the Constitution does it say "Right to bear arms after proper training"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.................
.
If the gun classes provided the above quoted training and was affordable to all I would agree, but in the long run it will become cost prohibitive to most people. I sat in on a CC course that is required by Florida to obtain a CWL at a gun show this past weekend, what a joke. This class requirement is nothing more than a means for someone to rip off the new gun owners to the tune of $75 for a 30 minute talk and to fire one round in a barrel of sand.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 must again ask where in the Constitution does it say "Right to bear arms after proper training"?
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Mississippi Gun Owners
A forum community dedicated to Mississippi State Gun Owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, ranges, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
