Concealed Weapons in Arizona

Two days ago Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into legislation, a bill that would make carrying a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit, in most cases, legal. This legislation has catapulted Arizona into the headlines on the Drudge Report and in the national media. As a resident, I would like to tell you what this means from a resident's point of view, but first, some background.

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.

Reconsidering my (Lack of) Political Affiliation, Part II

In my previous post I openly floated the question as to whether or not I should register as a Republican for the upcoming primary, which will become more of a necessity should John McCain succeed in barring independent voters from voting in his primary. I am now going to present an argument as to why I should not become a Republican. But first, some historical background.

I have lived in Arizona Congressional District 8 (hereinafter referred to as CD8) since February of 1999. The incumbent Congressman was Jim Kolbe, who was in his post for several years. Some viewed him as "moderate", others may have thought he was too far right, and others yet may have thought he was too far left. Whatever the sentiment, I had the sense that he was more popular in this district than he was unpopular, a sentiment borne out with his repeated reelection. All I can tell you is that in my dealings with his office, he was very responsive, sending me a letter that addressed my point. It wasn't a form letter. It was a response to whatever specific concern that I had raised at that time. I may or may not have agreed with what he said, but I always appreciated his taking the time to get back to me.

However, with each election cycle, there was speculation on whether or not he would retire. This began to bubble in the 2003 timeframe. We were figuring that he was going to step down, that maybe it was time to go into retirement, and let someone else have the seat. A conservative state senator named Randy Graf was thinking the same thing, and he made the decision to challenge Jim Kolbe in the Republican Party. The party establishment, of course, paid no attention then to this challenge, but Randy Graf ended up getting 40% of the primary vote....including mine. It wasn't that Jim Kolbe was really all that bad, it was instead a sense that we could do better.

Jim Kolbe went on to win the general election, but after his first year or so into that term he announced that he would be retiring and would not run for re-election in 2006. Then five Republicans who wanted his seat came out of the woodwork. They were Frank Antenori, Steve Huffman, Randy Graf, and two others who I can't remember. The initial reaction from the Republican National Committee (RNC) was "may the best man win" and they indicated that they would stay out of this and then back the primary winner.

It was about that time that President Bush continued his betrayal of the base that elected him by announcing that he wanted amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens who were in our country. This in turn encouraged the RNC to break the promise that they had made to the voters of District 8. They decided to "anoint" Steve Huffman as the next Congressman.

At that point I was already a registered independent, as that my tipping point had been reached earlier when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I figured that I was giving up my privilege of voting in the Republican primary, but I didn't care at that point. The Republican Party had become the party that they ran against and defeated in 1994. I wanted no part of them at that point.

It wasn't long after that that I felt I had done the right thing. The RNC's anointing of Steve Huffman, a former state legislator, was causing us to scrutinize his record. We knew Randy Graf was a border hawk, but what about Steve Huffman? Steve Huffman was all of a sudden trying to convince us that he would be "tough" on border enforcement, but curiously enough, whenever any border issue came up in the state legislature, he was conveniently absent from the voting record! In other words, he had no track record on this issue to speak of at all!

Meantime, I had learned that according to the Arizona Revised Statutes, that I, as a declared nonpartisan, could vote in the primary of any party that wasn't closed to independent voters. I could show up at the polling station, and vote in the Democratic primary, or in the Republican primary (the Libertarian Party is closed to independents). I then realized that I could go ahead and vote for Randy Graf, although I was equally impressed with Frank Antenori. I figured (and correctly, I might add) that if Steve Huffman were to win the primary, he would run as being tough on the border, and then vote for "amnesty" once elected.

The primary vote was held in September 2006, and Randy Graf won the nomination. In other words, the voters of this district who live here rebelled against the Republican National Committee establishment. The party bosses, who had never set foot in Arizona in all their lives arrogantly decided that they knew better, and we told them otherwise.

This didn't sit well with the RNC. They retaliated against their own voters. They refused to fund the candidacy of Randy Graf, and this ultimately led to Gabrielle Giffords, the Democrat, winning election for CD8.

Should she have won?

At that time, the Republicans had 31% of the registered voters, the Democrats 27%, and the rest were either other parties or independents. This district, owned by the Republicans for 22 years, was given to the Democrats by the RNC, as retaliation for the voters here rejecting their girly-man Steve Huffman. Gabrielle Giffords won re-election again in 2008, and is up again this year.

So what are the Republicans going to do?

I guess that depends. The best known declared candidate is former state senator Jonathan Paton, who resigned his state senate seat a few months ago to formally declare for this race. The next best known candidate after that is ex-Marine Jesse Kelly. Jesse Kelly should be known to you if you've regularly visited the Drudge Report as that I've seen his ad up there numerous times. I don't see the RNC establishment backing him should he win, but I think that they just might back Paton if he wins.

Meantime, I'm still an independent, but I think I'm going to go ahead and register as a Republican for the reasons detailed in my last posting. I really don't want to do this, especially in light of the contempt that the party bosses have for the fine people of this district, but I think it's important to take McCain out sooner rather than later.

Also, there's a rumor that Sheriff Joe is going to run for governor. That's right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. He's the sheriff that you've been reading about for several years....the sheriff who brought the chain gangs back to Arizona, the sheriff who makes his inmates wear pink underwear and 1930s style striped prison uniforms, and who just recently is making the prisoners ride exercise bikes if they want to watch TV.

I don't see incumbent governor Jan Brewer winning reelection. She's an improvement over who we had before, but she stumbled badly in her first few months in office and I don't see her winning against Terry Goddard. The voters are angry right now, and I think they'll be even angrier in November.

* * * * * * *

Other tidbits, then I'll sign.

Things between Lynette and I are very strong, and we're making plans to visit each other's families. This means trips to San Jose and to southern Wisconsin over the next few months. I'm hoping that San Jose will happen in June, and if it does that will be a short one.....but we plan on returning there in November.

In July, we are planning to go to Wisconsin, with a side trip to Iowa since I want to see Aunt Marge and Uncle Tony. Uncle Tony is still recovering from his surgery. Aunt Marge is in excellent spirits. I really admire her; she sets an example during her adversity that I am in awe of.

The new Bachman & Turner CD is in its final stages from what I hear. I don't know if they're coming to Arizona just yet, but I'm sure they'd like to. If not, then hopefully Las Vegas, since I can get up there and enjoy a scenic drive along US93.

At work, my job responsibilities have changed. I'm no longer helping to develop circuit cards. During my last review my supervisor told me that there were some other opportunities within our group that I should consider, and after spending a weekend thinking about it I decided to pitch in and to help out a project that really needs it. I was expecting it to be temporary but I'm now on that one full time.

The best way to describe it is that I am working on what the circuit cards are actually used for. They reside in an assembly, and that assembly resides in another assembly, and it is that second level assembly that I am now working on.

I think it will be a good use of my skills.