Monday, June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.
In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday, June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.
In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the

By David Morse
Guest Columnist
Published on Sunday, May 2, 2010 9:16 AM MST

Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1108, a bill that decriminalizes the carrying of concealed weapons in the state of Arizona, on April 16. This bill will become law 90 days after the Legislature closes.

Arizona will become the third state, following Vermont and Alaska, allowing concealed carry without a permit. Arizona will be the first state with a large urban population to enact such legislation.

What does this mean? In short, any person 21 years of age or older legally qualified to own a firearm may carry a firearm in concealment, where not restricted, without fear of arrest or prosecution. The current system for issue of concealed weapons permits will remain in place. Persons wishing to join the more than 154,000 Arizonans who already have concealed weapons permits will have that option.

Is this a good thing? In a free society can there be too much freedom? I predict many people will drop pistols in their pockets and tuck revolvers into their waistbands “because they can.” After a month or so, when the novelty is gone and the added weight and bother of carrying a chunk of iron sets in, many of those guns will go back into drawers and safes.

Allow me to offer one bit of advice. Guns are deadly weapons. Carrying a deadly weapon incurs many risks and imposes many responsibilities. This is not something to be done lightly without thought or consideration. Carry responsibly!

Many restrictions will still exist. One cannot carry weapons on private property (or any property for that matter) posted “No Guns Allowed,” on national monuments, Indian reservations, school grounds, military reservations and other places.

Be aware that the law requires any person carrying a concealed weapon to inform a police officer about the weapon if asked. Also, the weapon must be surrendered to a police officer, for temporary holding, upon request.

And just because no law forbids carrying a concealed weapon, that does not mean there are no laws against improper use or display of firearms. I foresee a rash of “misconduct with firearms” or “endangerment with firearms” arrests (both class-6 felonies) in certain parts of the state not known as gun-friendly.

Obtaining an Arizona concealed weapons permit is still a good idea. Reciprocity is a big factor. At this time, 29 states will honor your Arizona CCW — similar to their recognition of your Arizona driver’s license. Without a permit, your “right to carry” ends at the Arizona state line.

Last year, Arizona allowed permit holders to carry their concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that served alcohol, provided the establishment had not posted a notice they would not allow carry on their premises and the person consumed no alcohol. Those without a permit can be issued citations and their firearms confiscated if they carry weapons into an establishment serving alcohol, whether the premises are posted or not.

People with a valid Arizona CCW may purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer without being subjected to a federal background check at the time of purchase. The FFL dealer notes the CCW number on the 4473 form in lieu of making a National Instant Check System call, and the buyer takes the gun home with him.

About one out of five calls to NICS results in a “delay” status for the purchase. The buyer cannot take the gun with him at that time. A delay means NICS needs time to check something found in its initial computer-based background check. Maybe there are several “John Smiths” with criminal backgrounds, or the buyer has an arrest from 15 years back and the fact no charges were filed is not noted; maybe a restraining order in another state was issued to a “John Smith.”

There can be dozens of reasons. Many have obtained CCWs simply because their names are common, and they get tired of delays every time they try to purchase a firearm. Also, there are no federal computer-based records of the purchase.

And last but not least: training. There is no such thing as too much training. The eight hours spent in the AZ CCW course is but a touch on the myriad and complex tactical, legal and moral issues inherent to carrying a deadly weapon.

Having the permit carries one more advantage: respect. Members of law enforcement recognize that those who have obtained a permit to carry are honest citizens who have made an effort to educate themselves about firearms and related laws.

When an officer or deputy runs your name in a routine traffic stop, the fact that you have been issued a CCW permit is displayed on the patrol car’s computer screen. Most cops will be much more cordial and relaxed with a person they know has a CCW because they know he is not a felon and is possibly honest by nature. How many criminals spend time going to classes and getting permits?

The cost of an AZ CCW permit (valid for five years) is $60. The reciprocity, avoidance of NICS delays, training and respect that come with a CCW permit are priceless.

By Chuck Baldwin

The major news media was replete with reports over the weekend that the coffee company, Starbucks, “has no problem with customers packing heat while placing their orders.”

“The coffee giant says it won’t take issue with gun owners who take advantage of ‘open carry’ laws and bring firearms into their restaurant.” (Source: NBC News)

To tell you the truth, I’m not sure why this is even considered “newsworthy.” Perhaps because Starbucks is a Seattle-based company that caters to the “yuppie” crowd? Maybe because the anti-gun national news media is shocked and chagrined at Starbucks’ statement? Who knows? That Starbucks would not want to alienate millions of gun owners (many of whom lawfully carry concealed weapons for personal protection) makes perfectly good sense to me. I’m sure the statement by Starbucks has little to do with guns and everything to do with business. But the fact is, there are tens of thousands of lawfully armed citizens who carry either concealed or open that have been peacefully doing business with thousands of companies around the country for years.

At last glance, 12 states allow unrestricted open carry. Those states are Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia. Plus, at least 13 other states allow restricted open carry (meaning a permit is required). I know it infuriates gun-grabbing liberals to admit this, but the facts are absolutely undeniable that an armed citizenry is far and away a more civilized and peaceful citizenry.

Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third President Thomas Jefferson rightly said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Founding Father, the man called “the father of the U.S. Constitution,” and our 4th President James Madison, agreed with Jefferson. He wrote in Federalist, Number 46, “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Founding Father and author of the classic Revolution-era books, “Common Sense” and “Rights of Man,” Thomas Paine concurred. He said, “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them.”

And should there be any doubt in the minds of sincere men regarding the advantages and appropriateness of an armed citizenry, the research of John R. Lott, Jr. is more than sufficient to dispel it. Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. His book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, is the most authoritative and thoroughly researched volume on the subject. And the title of his book is exactly what his research proves: More guns, less crime!

Lott’s analysis “is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.” Lott said carry laws reduce violent crime because “victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.” DUH!

See a University of Chicago-sponsored interview with Mr. Lott here.

Of course, liberal gun-grabbers love to instill fear into people by saying that citizens carrying guns will result in more incidents of violence. However, the facts just do not substantiate this hysteria. Even our local “mullet wrapper” recently ran a column excoriating the new law that allows concealed carry permit holders to carry his or her sidearm in national parks and forests. The basis of their diatribe? “It’s a risky change that will endanger families, hikers, those who work in these places and the park rangers themselves.”

See the rant here.

Like all gun-grabbers, however, the fearmongering of the editorial board at the Pensacola, Florida, News Journal just does not square with the facts. As Lott observes, “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate–as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

Accordingly, the new law allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks and forests serves only to make those parks and forests safer.

I well remember being invited to speak in the rural Montana town of Hamilton last year. Somewhere between 600 and 800 people assembled at the local fairgrounds to hear me speak. It was a terrific rally with some of the most patriotic and enthusiastic people I have ever spoken to. (They have invited me back to speak, this time at the University of Montana in Missoula, to a much larger crowd of probably several thousand later this May.)

Along with the vibrancy, energy, and sheer enthusiasm of that audience I observed that scores of people were openly carrying handguns on their hips. (No telling how many people were carrying concealed. Scores more, I’m sure.) Can one imagine a would-be killer trying to open fire in that meeting? Needless to say, not only did I feel at home, I felt absolutely safe–a whole lot safer than I feel when I travel to Washington, D.C. (or any other city or State restricting gun possession), that is for sure!

Obviously, the executives at Starbucks are wiser and more discerning than a majority of newspaper editors and television news anchors. They have seen several other business establishments that have introduced corporate policies prohibiting lawfully armed citizens from entering their establishments–and they’ve seen their profits and customer bases shrink dramatically! They’ve also, no doubt, seen what happened in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a madman crashed his vehicle into the restaurant and began shooting patrons at will. The total carnage on that horrific day back in 1991 resulted in 23 people dead and 20 more wounded, and the killer eventually killing himself. Some 80 people were in the restaurant when the shooting occurred, but Texas did not have a concealed carry law at the time, so no one was armed and able to fight back.

At this point, I strongly urge readers to watch the eyewitness testimony of former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp–whose parents were killed in the Luby’s Cafeteria rampage–given before the US Congress. See her testimony here.

Therefore, the sadness and chagrin of liberal gun-grabbers notwithstanding, I say, “Hooray for Starbucks!” And I don’t even like their coffee. Maybe I’ll give them another chance.

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.

by Catherine Holland

Posted on February 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Updated Tuesday, Feb 2 at 8:30 AM

******

PHOENIX — Arizona adults who want to carry a concealed weapon might not have to undergo a background check or any special training in the future.

The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a measure that would allow exactly that. The vote was four to three along party lines.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa. The Republican says the measure is designed preserve the constitutional right to bear arms. It’s also meant to cut the legal red tape that many say prevents law-abiding people from protecting themselves.

Opponents of the bill are concerned that allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit would lead to more violence.

Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police lobbyist John Thomas says the measure would “take Arizona back into Wild-West carry with no consideration for officer safety.”

Right now it is legal to an adult to carry a gun as long as it’s clearly visible.

Those who want to carry concealed are required not only to have a permit, but to have that permit with them whenever they are carrying. The permit holder must also show the document to law-enforcement officers upon request.

To get that permit, a person must undergo a minimum of eight hours of training by an authorized instructor and submit fingerprints.

The bill on the table, SB1102, would remove that training requirement. It would also remove the mandate that a person carrying a concealed weapon also carry a CCW permit.

According to the Department of Public Safety, processing time for permits is currently running at about 75 days. In addition, because Arizona is a “shall issue” state, permits cannot be denied as long as the applicant meets the statutory requirements.

DPS statistics show that as of Jan. 31, there were nearly 150,000 active permits, more than 1,700 suspended permits and 1,002 revoked permits. More than 78,000 of those permits are held in Maricopa County.

The largest single group of those with concealed-weapons permits is white men between the ages of 60 and 69, followed by white men between the ages of 50 and 59.

The measure passed Monday, SB 1102, will go to the full Senate after a legal review. A House committee is slated to hear a similar bill on Wednesday.

Current statutes
Arizona Revised Statute 13-3112
Arizona Administrative Rules R13-9-101 through R13-9-603

All anti-rights bills defeated, some pro-rights bills died

Waiting until the last possible moment, Arizona governor Jan Brewer on July 13 signed all eight gun-related bills enacted by the state legislature in 2009. Two crucial bills, Constitutional Carry and penalty reduction for discreet carry without a permit, failed passage at the last minute and didn’t make it to her desk. The eight bills signed into law, which will become effective on Sep. 30, 2009 (except SB 1242, effective immediately), are:

• HB 2569   Smuggling people for profit, involving a deadly weapon
• SB 1113   CCW in liquor-licensed places OK without drinking, unless no-gun signs
• SB 1088   Domestic violence protection extended to romantic or sexual partners
• SB 1168   Parking lots cannot ban firearms locked in vehicles, with exceptions
• SB 1242   Exemptions from CCW and more for more “proper authorities”
• SB 1243   Defensive display of a firearm in self defense defined and protected
• SB 1437   AZ High School Marksmanship Program instructor definition expanded
• SB 1449   Retroactive self-defense clarification (Harold Fish law)

At least 14 gun-related bills were introduced this year, with the few anti-rights bills repudiated early in the session and defeated. One other pro-rights bill died at the end, the effort to reduce required classes to three or four hours for people already well trained in gun use through military, police or private programs. Some 20 legislators walked out very late on the final session (which went all night and ended at 7:30 a.m.) stealing away votes that had been verbally committed and were needed for passage of that and the petty offense amendment for discreet carry without a permit. The pro-rights people were left with 30 votes, and needed 31 to pass the laws.

The entire session was run in a bizarre manner — no legislative work for months in the Senate while the Napolitano deficit was being resolved, then an impossibly crowded and rushed legislative calendar in the final few weeks, with no room for error, adjustment or contemplation. The procedures were a disgraceful humiliating embarrassment to good governance.

Constitutional Carry, which would have allowed law-abiding Arizonans to carry a firearm discreetly — with the same freedom they’ve had since statehood in 1912 to carry openly — got tied up in the Rules committee in the closing days of the session. A late amendment to the bill, which created a conflict with federal law, forced Rules to hold the bill and there wasn’t enough time left in the session to make the needed changes.

The amendment was added by Judiciary chairman Jonathan Paton (R-Tucson), normally a good supporter of RKBA, who insisted he wouldn’t hear the bill without the new language. The amendment criminalized smuggling guns across the Mexican border, which DPS wants even though it’s a federal matter. That carrot might have helped move the cart on Constitutional Carry, which DPS is basically against, but in the end scuttled the bill.

Following standard practice, this year’s changes will be produced as an insert and included with copies of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, posted on our website, and available as a formatted pdf file or plain text for downloading. This is a preliminary analysis for review and comment.

Summarizing this year’s changes:

The guns-in-restaurants bill also says: Members of a sheriff’s volunteer posse who have received specified training (AZPOST) can bear arms while on duty, with conditions. A U.S. law enforcement officer with 10 consecutive years of service and a special picture ID can carry concealed without a permit, and their most recent law-enforcement employer must issue the card on request. AZPOST-certified LEOs who volunteer for their agency’s reserve program are exempt from taking the CCW training program. Misconduct with weapons in an act of terrorism is raised to a class 2 felony. Note that terrorism is broadly defined (§13-2301) and this law could be applied beyond the common understanding of terrorism (e.g., a felony with a firearm intended to influence policy or affect the conduct of the state). Another extra guarantee against localities banning LEOs from carrying firearms has been added.

24 / SB 1088 / §13-3601 / Domestic violence expansion

Penalties for domestic-violence offenses, including restraining orders and firearms confiscations, can now be applied, in addition to problems between family members, to people who are or were in “a romantic or sexual relationship.” The law is a response to the case of a woman murdered by her boyfriend. A restraining order was unavailable because they weren’t married. It’s unclear, as always, how much a piece of paper from a court would have influenced a murderer. Now, people in a casual relationship have an enormously powerful weapon they can use on each other in the event of a quarrel — confiscation of any collection of arms and a ban on possession. Questions linger as to how much of a relationship qualifies, which the statute left ambiguous.

55, 70 / SB 1168 / §12-781 / Ban on prohibiting guns in parked vehicles

It’s unlawful for a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity (called the “responsible party” below for brevity) to create a policy or rule that prevents a person from lawfully transporting or storing any firearm in a privately owned motor vehicle if:

1 – the vehicle is locked or the firearm is in a locked compartment on a motorcycle;

2 – the firearm is not visible. Any attempt to do so is null, void, unenforceable and without legal effect.

The ban on gun bans in private vehicles doesn’t apply under four conditions:

1 – possession of the firearm is already banned under federal or state law;

2 – the vehicle is owned or leased by the responsible party
in which case the ban is at their discretion;

3 – the responsible party has a facility secured by a fence or other physical barrier, and also limits access by a guard or other security measure, and the responsible party
provides secure storage with ready access and retrieval, similar to the gun-locker rules for public buildings and events;

4 – compliance with this statute would violate another applicable federal or state law. Nuclear generating stations must comply with gun-locker requirements.

The parking area for a single-family detached residence is exempt from this law. Department of Defense contractors whose property is located wholly or partially on a military base are exempt from this law. A responsible party can provide an alternate parking facility close to the main facility, ban firearms at the main one, and allow them at the alternate facility, as long as they don’t charge any extra fee.

Anticipating possible legal challenges from large corporations or other property owners whose parking space is open to the public, the legislature included a six-point set of findings, rare in state bills, to clarify that:

1 – the state and federal Constitutions provide strong protection for the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense;

2 – the enjoyment of this right is impaired if people are deprived the right to keep arms in
their vehicles;

3 – people are deprived of their rights if firearms cannot be kept in their private vehicles;

4 – your locked private vehicle is private, not a public space, you have the right to furnish it any way you like that is legal to enhance your comfort, security, ease of movement and
enjoyment of liberty;

5 – parking lot operators are not unduly burdened by the presence of legally possessed property secured within the vehicle by its owner;

6 – this act is for the benefit and protection of people who choose to exercise and enforce their fundamental right to bear arms in self defense in their movements throughout this state, including in their personal motor vehicles.

114 / SB 1243 / §13-421 / Defensive display of firearms protection

“Defensive display of a firearm” means:

1 – Verbally telling someone that you have a firearm or can get one;

2 – Exposing or displaying a gun in a way that a reasonable person would understand means you can protect yourself against illegal physical or deadly physical force;

3 – Placing your hand on a firearm while it is in your pocket, purse or other means of
containment or transport.

Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly physical force. A defensive display is not required before using or threatening physical force, in a situation where you would be justified in using or threatening physical force.

Defensive display is not justified if you intentionally provoke the other person, or if you use a firearm in the commission of a serious offense or violent crime (defined in §13-706 and §13-901.3).

This important new law clarifies that a proper defensive reach for or announcement of firearm possession is an acceptable element in the continuum of self defense, and should not be charged as a crime. Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault). It also helps balance out the problematic and arbitrary “threatening exhibition” of a gun allegation that prosecutors can make in charging a felony as a “dangerous offense” (§13-702 and 704). The threat of this extra charge can be used to coerce a plea agreement, and now this is balanced with a specified stipulation of proper display of a gun without firing at a potential assailant.

44 / SB 1437 / §15-714.01 / High school marksmanship training expansion

Instructors for the Arizona Gun Safety Program, a marksmanship course for high school students, can be certified by a national association of firearms owners, in addition to the Arizona Game and Fish Dept.

SB 1449 / Retroactive self defense (Harold Fish law)

In certain cases, “Laws 2006, chapter 199 applies retroactively… regardless of when the conduct underlying the charges occurred.”

The state enacted amendments in 2006 to make it clear that, if a person claims self defense, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted without justification (the appropriate “innocent until proven guilty” standard). One of the laws amended, which had been quietly slipped in by prosecutors without review ten years earlier, forced a defendant to prove innocence, the exact opposite of what American laws
should be (it made you guilty unless you could prove your innocence, a tyrannical standard). Part of these changes became known as the Castle Doctrine — you can stand your ground if attacked, intruders in your home are a legally recognized threat, and self defense was to receive robust protection under the law.

The new rules were supposed to protect people in a predicament like Harold Fish, a school teacher with a clean record out hiking in May 2004. He was attacked by a homeless known troublemaker with violent dogs on a forest trail outside Payson. Mr. Fish, who survived by shooting his assailant three times in the chest at close range, was at first released in what appeared an obvious self defense, but was then attacked by the county attorney, in a trial that reeked of unfairness.

The legislature is here making it clear that people are entitled to the full protection of the law, and the public’s safety will likely be enhanced with this small measure that serves notice on the powers that be. Other problems, like failure to fully inform juries, bad jury instructions, exclusion of exculpatory or illuminating evidence, exorbitant cost and inordinate timeframes, and other potholes in the criminal justice system remain to be fixed.

HB 2569 (§13-2319) and SB 1242 (§13-3102)

Two additional gun laws will affect the statutes in the back of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, but have little direct impact on the general public or the text of the book. §13-2319 is amended to make smuggling people for profit or a commercial purpose a class 2 felony if the offense “involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” In §13-3102, we find that more “proper authorities” have been exempted from gun laws that restrict the public, like carrying without a permit, concealed carry
in a car without a permit, making, having, transporting or selling prohibited weapons, having a defaced deadly weapon, entering a public establishment or public event with a deadly weapon after being told not to, and more. The new crop of exempt special people includes community correctional officers, detention officers, and special investigators with
DOC or the Dept. of Juvenile Corrections. Other sections of the bill repeat language found in SB 1113, a common practice to help assure passage (if one bill fails, the language gets through in the other bill).

It’s interesting to note that, at the federal level, a growth process like this took place for decades, with a new batch of people added 32 times, until the statute grew so embarrassingly long (one sentence of 741 words) Congress shortened the law by 610 words, cutting out all the named groups, but expanded the impact by simply making it applicable to “any officer or employee of the United States. That statute, 18 USC §1114, makes it a greater crime to kill them than to kill you or me. How that comports with
equal protection under the law is unclear.

Author: Alan Korwin.

Alan Korwin is a founder and two-term past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association, which has presented him with its Visionary Leadership award, named in his honor, the Korwin Award. He is active with the speaker’s bureau for the non-profit, Wash., D.C.-based news-media watchdog, Accuracy In Media.

Alan’s first book, The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide , is now in its 23rd edition with more than 100,000 copies in print. He went on to write or co-write seven more books on gun laws, including state guides for California , Florida , Texas and Virginia , the unabridged federal guide Gun Laws of America , and his 11th, which debuted at the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference, The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed!

Alan’s blog, PageNine.org, is carried by dozens of paper and online outlets.

Associated Press
Published: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:12 p.m. MDT

PHOENIX — Arizonans with concealed weapons permits will be allowed to take a handgun into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol under a bill signed Monday by Gov. Jan Brewer.

The measure, backed by the National Rifle Association, will require bar and restaurant owners who want to ban weapons on the premises to post a no-guns sign next to the business’ liquor license.

Drinking while carrying a weapon would be illegal.

Before a compromise reached late in the Legislature’s regular session, the measure pitted powerful groups representing gun and bar owners against each other.

Opponents have said mixing guns and alcohol produces a dangerous combination that could cause violence. Supporters said people should be able to protect themselves at businesses that serve alcohol. Supporters also said it was risky to leave guns in parked vehicles.

The bill originally only applied to establishments with kitchens, but it was expanded to include bars. Another change was to move the location for posting a no-guns notice, which originally was to have been next to the main entrance. Some bar owners had worried about uncertainty over which entrance would be considered the main entrance.

A lobbyist for the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, which opposed the original bill, said the amended version created clear, uniform and enforceable rules.

“It’s going to happen one way or another, and this was the best version we’ve seen,” ALBA lobbyist Don Isaacson said after the bill was revised last month.

It’s already legal to carry a gun into a store that sells alcohol for consumption elsewhere.

It would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500 to carry a gun into an establishment with a no-guns notice posted.

The law, however, includes a partial legal defense for a person carrying a concealed weapon within an establishment banning guns. It would apply if the sign had fallen down, the person wasn’t an Arizona resident and the notice was first posted less than a month earlier.

H.R. 197, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

For more information on H.R. 1074, please click here.

To see if your Representative is a cosponsor of H.R. 1074, please click here.

Again, please contact your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and urge them to cosponsor and support these measures. For additional information on these bills, please visit www.NRAILA.org.