When the nation was founded, it was understood that you not only had the right to possess a weapon, but you also had the right to carry it. This right, as far as I know, was not questioned or regulated for the first century of our nation's existence. You can say that it was universally understood to be a right to possess and carry, and that you had the right to self-defense. It wasn't really questioned when Arizona was a territory, as that even the so-called "cowboys", whom can be viewed as a criminal element (especially in Tombstone in 1881) had the right to possess and carry.
It was around that time though that legislation restricting the concealed carry of a firearm was coming into vogue among several states. The southern states, wishing to keep the newly-freed slave population in their place, were among the first to enact laws restricting the carrying of a concealed weapon. Texas outlawed the practice in 1871. Other states enacted similar bans over a period of time. California outlawed the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit in 1923, and Minnesota finally got around to it in 1975. At that time the carrying of a concealed weapon tended to be favored by the criminal element, thus the rationale for passing these kinds of laws. When California passed their law in 1923, they required a permit, and you could not get one unless the chief of police or the sheriff issued you a permit, and you had to show "good cause" for carrying a concealed weapon. Interestingly enough, some of the states that restricted concealed carry did not outlaw "open carry": that is, carrying a firearm in plain view while in a belt holster. Arizona was one of these states......open carry of a firearm remained legal without a permit, and it is still legal here to this day.
By the mid 1980s, only ten states were what we can define as "shall issue". That is, if you had no criminal record and you applied for a concealed weapon permit, or CCW, the permitting authority was required to grant you such a permit. Some states required applicants to complete a firearms safety course while others, such as Washington, did not.
Things began to change in 1987. The state of Florida that year changed their law. The legislature passed a law that made Florida "shall issue". If you had no criminal record and took the class, you would then be issued a permit. This was of some controversy in Florida as that the nay-sayers predicted an escalation of violence. What happened though was that it was the law-abiding who applied for the permit, and revocations of these permits (such as for misconduct involving a firearm) were relatively rare.
Florida going "shall issue" had the effect of catalyzing similar movements in other states. Other states followed suit, with Texas going "shall issue" in 1994 as well as Arizona. Those who were living here at that time have told me that similar predictions of escalation of violence were raised by the nay-sayers. Never mind that "open carry" was legal in Arizona and usually seen in the smaller towns. Increased bloodshed was predicted to take place here. And again, revocations of concealed weapon permits in Arizona were relatively rare.
When the Arizona legislature legalized concealed carry with a permit, they tweaked the "car carry" law as well. We have always had the ability to drive around with a loaded firearm on the front seat of car as long as the weapon was in plain sight. I have had out of staters ask me if this bothers the cops, and the cops that I have talked to really haven't had a problem with that as long as the weapon was plainly visible. The 1994 law added that driving around with a weapon in your glovebox was legal. Your weapon could also be under the front seat if the weapon was in a holster. This was an interesting quirk, as that if your firearm was in a holster and under the front seat, it was legal without a permit. Yet, if the weapon was not in a holster and under the front seat, it was considered 'concealed", and illegal if you did not have a permit. Go figure. (New Mexico got around this by declaring that your motor vehicle was an extension of your home, and the weapon could be anywhere within the vehicle, and Louisiana has that interpretation as well).
Now things are going to change in Arizona as far as the law is concerned. We are going to become the third state that allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit. Vermont does not regulate the transport of firearms; concealed or open carry is legal there, and Vermont does not issue permits. Alaska became the second state to not require a permit, although Alaska will issue you a permit if you want one, but will not require the permit. And here in Arizona, the Department of Public Safety will issue you the permit if you qualify, as that some 30 states will honor the Arizona permit and you will have to have that if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in those states.
Also, you will need a permit if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in any place that serves alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, but you must conceal the weapon and you must not consume alcoholic beverages, and the owner of the establishment permits firearms on the premises. Some restaurants and bars have posted "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs while others have not. The media is not pointing this out, as that they instead want people outside of Arizona to think that we've somehow gone back to the Wild West.
What the media isn't telling you, that in the grand scheme of things, is that the impact is neglible. It's already legal to carry a loaded firearm in a belt holster. I've seen that occasionally here in Tucson, and I've done it myself when I've gone on my ghost town expiditions. On two occasions a law enforcement officer has observed me in the open carry mode, and I was not approached or questioned in any way. If you want to open carry here, it is your right.
As for concealed carry, the reality of the situation is that the criminals are doing it anyway without a permit. Do you really think that a criminal is going to apply for a concealed carry permit? If you do, or if you think that a criminal is cares about compliance to carry laws, I am going to have to tell you that you are sadly mistaken. I know about this from experience, as that I am the survivor of an armed robbery that took place when I was living in San Jose.
My place of employment was robbed at gunpoint. The robber was caught at the scene. The robber was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. He was not charged with possessing a loaded firearm in public within the limits of an incorporated city, which is not legal in California. I'm going to guess that his gun was not registered either, which is again, a violation of California law. He took possession, at gunpoint, money that was not his, and he was not charged with armed robbery either. He instead was charged with "attempted" armed robbery and subsequently dealt with in the courts. That should be telling you that California's laws with respect to concealed weapons are not applied to practicing criminals. Instead, California prefers to charge the nurse who is caught with a handgun in her purse since her co-workers have been raped in the parking lot over the past few months.
So, am I in favor of Arizona making it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?
I am, but I'm not done with this yet.
One, I have had a state-issued concealed weapons permit since early 1999 when I moved here. I have taken the class, I have renewed the permit, and when it comes up again for renewal in 2013 I'm going to keep the permit.
Two, I think people here should take the class anyway and apply for the permit. If it were up to me, a "mandatory" firearms safety would be taught in high school, as that I think that our youth must have drilled into them that guns are not toys and that they must be respected. Part of that high school course should include a visit to the morgue where they can see for themselves what happens when guns are misused. (I do think that parents should have the right to exempt their children from this class, which is why I put mandatory in quotes....there are pacifists out there who have the right to their beliefs and I will not force my beliefs onto pacifists).
Three, taking the class does reinforce the notion that there are legal issues and responsibilities when it comes to carrying firearms. Again, I would rather that these things be taught in high schools, but the public education system seems more intent on making our kids think that Christopher Columbus was a genocidal racist than they are in teaching real life issues such as legal matters or how the lending industry works.
I personally would not have a problem if concealed carry without a permit was legal in all fifty states. However, that isn't the case. There are some holdout states that suffer from the mentality that defense of self or home is somehow morally wrong.......Joe and Jane Citizen must instead submit to the criminal rather than draw a gun on that criminal. That isn't right.
The criminal isn't going to go to a police station to ask for an application for a concealed weapons permit. The criminal isn't going to register his gun at the police station if his state's law says that they have to. They just won't do it. They won't. They're criminals, after all.
Arizona is in the process of levelling the playing field.
I hope that other states follow suit.
* * * * * * *
The new website for Bachman & Turner will go online in a few hours! Check them out, http://www.bachmanandturner.com/.
* * * * * * *
Summer will soon be here. As I write this, I have chicken in the fridge that will find its way to my barbecue grill in the very near future. I'm hoping that Lynette can get off work early so that she can join me.
If she doesn't make it, then I guess I'll have leftover BBQ chicken for tomorrow night's supper.
* * * * * * *
Future projects for this blog: I want to start posting some interesting photos that have either found their way to me, and/or those that I have taken. I've been exercising my Canon AE-1 again after a long hiatus.
I also want to devote few posts for some book reviews, as my cousin Jeanette is doing.
I wanted to do that with this post, but with our new law I felt the need to comment on that while that iron was still hot.
* * * * * * *
Don't forget to pet a dog or a cat. Dogs and cats have a sense of loyalty to people, and we could learn from them.
Also, taking the time to pet a dog or a cat will reduce your blood pressure. It will make the dog or cat feel good too, and they'll appreciate it.
I admit, my appreciation for the power of a gun increased dramatically the first time I shot one (at an indoor gun range). When my kids are old enough, I plan to take them to one as well, so they at least know what its all about (and no toy guns in the meantime). I like your idea of a morgue visit, that would get the point across.
ReplyDeleteWhen Richard was nine years old I showed him what a 12 gauge shotgun would do to a water-filled 2 liter plastic Coke container. I said, "See that? That's what this gun will do to a person if you misuse it."
ReplyDeleteThat's when he learned to respect firearms.
We did have this agreement though. He was not allowed to touch a gun without my permission, and if he were to ask permission then I would not say no. I didn't want my guns to become a "forbidden fruit".
He did take me up on that a couple of times, and then never asked again after that. I think him knowing that he could have supervised access any time he wanted to helped keep things safe.
That's a pretty good idea.
ReplyDelete