In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Amazing Progress In Arizona
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Well, I call this amazing progress, although I know that most here will not agree.
The AZ governor just signed a bill stating that no concealed carry license is required to carry a concealed firearm in AZ. To me this is progress. Now I am well aware that because of the US Constitutional 2A and the constitution of some states (AZ? I don't know. Might check) there never should have been a requirement for lawful citizens to address their AZ government and have to ask for written permission to carry a concealed firearm. In theory that is how it should have been all along. But I deal in reality. I deal with what I have at hand. And the liberal left long ago highjacked our constitution. We have therefore lost so very many of our constitutional rights.
Passing laws giving us our constitutional rights back is at least one way to get those rights back. Such laws allow us to once again enjoy some of our constitutional rights all the while we work to get Americans to finally realize the the constitution gave us those rights long ago. When and if that happens, we can get rid of all the laws that did give us our constitutional rights back and just rely on the constitution for our rights. That is how it should have been all along.
To me such behavior is much better than going to a shooting war with our government.
But what do I know.
The AZ governor just signed a bill stating that no concealed carry license is required to carry a concealed firearm in AZ. To me this is progress. Now I am well aware that because of the US Constitutional 2A and the constitution of some states (AZ? I don't know. Might check) there never should have been a requirement for lawful citizens to address their AZ government and have to ask for written permission to carry a concealed firearm. In theory that is how it should have been all along. But I deal in reality. I deal with what I have at hand. And the liberal left long ago highjacked our constitution. We have therefore lost so very many of our constitutional rights.
Passing laws giving us our constitutional rights back is at least one way to get those rights back. Such laws allow us to once again enjoy some of our constitutional rights all the while we work to get Americans to finally realize the the constitution gave us those rights long ago. When and if that happens, we can get rid of all the laws that did give us our constitutional rights back and just rely on the constitution for our rights. That is how it should have been all along.
To me such behavior is much better than going to a shooting war with our government.
But what do I know.
Comments
Have to see how this one is going to work for us. I have some concerns but what will be will be (figuratively speaking). Just don't know what a cop is supposed to do when he has to presume that everyone he approaches is armed with a gun or a knife. Been a lot of stabbings around here lately ... don't see a lot of signs going up saying "no knives allowed".
[xx(]
Personally, I liked open carry, but then I'm somewhat of an old gunslinger anyway. Used to be no one would bat an eye if you had open leather ... but times change and you gotta be willing to change with them (within the limits of course).
Have to see how this one is going to work for us. I have some concerns but what will be will be (figuratively speaking). Just don't know what a cop is supposed to do when he has to presume that everyone he approaches is armed with a gun or a knife. Been a lot of stabbings around here lately ... don't see a lot of signs going up saying "no knives allowed".
[xx(]
Thanks for the reply. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above in red but I will make my comment and you can tell me if I understood you correctly.
A smart police officer will assume that EVERYONE he approaches or approaches him is armed. By doing this the officer may well avoid being surprised when someone who is approaching him, and for various reasons the officer decided that person was not armed, and then that person suddenly whips out a concealed knife or gun and kills the officer.
But that same officer will do well to understand that there are two very distinct kind of people in America who carry firearms and knives. One kind is the violent criminals who are very willing to harm some innocent person.
The other kind is the peaceful, lawful citizen who will not harm any innocent person for any reason. This last example would include about every legal gun owner I have ever known.
In addition, if a police officer is not willing to trust the lawful gun carrying citizens, then that officer needs to get into another line of work that does not require him to deal with armed lawful citizens.
In addition to that, it is unreasonable to restrict all citizens, the goods ones and the evils ones, just because there are some evil citizens who cannot be trusted to possess and carry firearms.
In addition to that, even if you did restrict the peaceful lawful citizens from carrying firearms, the very citizens whom you need not fear to begin with, the evil violent criminal citizens will break the no carry law just as they break any other law they care to break.
Oh, and the new AZ law also allows open carry.
Vermont.
Alaska.
Arizona.
And then there were THREE.
Vermont.
Alaska.
Arizona.
Exactly. And when it gets to be "50" then maybe we can focus on the fact that the 2A supersedes any concealed carry law.
And then there were THREE.
Vermont.
Alaska.
Arizona.
Amen, and this is why I keep up the fight. We have to 'take it back' a little at a time. I was in AK when the law changed and Sarah was in the fight to get 'right' reinstated. I discussed it with her several times.
I hope more states see the hand writing on the wall!!![^]
While I am happy about this overall, it is worth mentioning that such legislation should not be necessary when it comes to civil rights. It is a significant step in the right direction though and any measure taken towards ensuring the rights of human beings is worth taking.
I agree, "it should not be necessary", BUT the reality is it is!! This is the reality many deny!! We have a LONG UP HILL battle ahead of us. Please stop the infighting!!![V]
quote:Originally posted by fyrfinder
Personally, I liked open carry, but then I'm somewhat of an old gunslinger anyway. Used to be no one would bat an eye if you had open leather ... but times change and you gotta be willing to change with them (within the limits of course).
Have to see how this one is going to work for us. I have some concerns but what will be will be (figuratively speaking). Just don't know what a cop is supposed to do when he has to presume that everyone he approaches is armed with a gun or a knife. Been a lot of stabbings around here lately ... don't see a lot of signs going up saying "no knives allowed".
[xx(]
Thanks for the reply. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above in red but I will make my comment and you can tell me if I understood you correctly.
A smart police officer will assume that EVERYONE he approaches or approaches him is armed. By doing this the officer may well avoid being surprised when someone who is approaching him, and for various reasons the officer decided that person was not armed, and then that person suddenly whips out a concealed knife or gun and kills the officer.
But that same officer will do well to understand that there are two very distinct kind of people in America who carry firearms and knives. One kind is the violent criminals who are very willing to harm some innocent person.
The other kind is the peaceful, lawful citizen who will not harm any innocent person for any reason. This last example would include about every legal gun owner I have ever known.
In addition, if a police officer is not willing to trust the lawful gun carrying citizens, then that officer needs to get into another line of work that does not require him to deal with armed lawful citizens.
In addition to that, it is unreasonable to restrict all citizens, the goods ones and the evils ones, just because there are some evil citizens who cannot be trusted to possess and carry firearms.
In addition to that, even if you did restrict the peaceful lawful citizens from carrying firearms, the very citizens whom you need not fear to begin with, the evil violent criminal citizens will break the no carry law just as they break any other law they care to break.
Oh, and the new AZ law also allows open carry.
I guess what I had in mind was the officer that was teaching the concealed weapons course when he said that he would search any person that he stopped that had a fanny pack assuming that it contained a weapon.
Now, he was a unique cop in the respect that he was totally black and white in enforcement. Most that I knew were a bit less in your face so to speak. The officer in question retired and was later hired as a civilian code enforcement officer and stirred up a bit of controversy in his second life too. His strict way of enforcing everything probably explained a lot of his later stress related medical problems.
[:)]
Have to see how this one is going to work for us. I have some concerns but what will be will be (figuratively speaking). Just don't know what a cop is supposed to do when he has to presume that everyone he approaches is armed with a gun or a knife.
I agree. Only the police should be allowed to be armed. [xx(]
Well, I call this amazing progress, although I know that most here will not agree.
The AZ governor just signed a bill stating that no concealed carry license is required to carry a concealed firearm in AZ. To me this is progress. Now I am well aware that because of the US Constitutional 2A and the constitution of some states (AZ? I don't know. Might check) there never should have been a requirement for lawful citizens to address their AZ government and have to ask for written permission to carry a concealed firearm. In theory that is how it should have been all along. But I deal in reality. I deal with what I have at hand. And the liberal left long ago highjacked our constitution. We have therefore lost so very many of our constitutional rights.
Passing laws giving us our constitutional rights back is at least one way to get those rights back. Such laws allow us to once again enjoy some of our constitutional rights all the while we work to get Americans to finally realize the the constitution gave us those rights long ago. When and if that happens, we can get rid of all the laws that did give us our constitutional rights back and just rely on the constitution for our rights. That is how it should have been all along.
To me such behavior is much better than going to a shooting war with our government.
But what do I know.
This return to constitutional carry is distinctly different from the 'gun privilege' laws that you are attempting to link to this, trfox.
Those type laws that you are a proponent of are clear unconstitutional restrictions on the RKBA and they are even more insidious than prohibitions, since they cement in the psyche of America that the carrying of firearms is 'kinda-sorta' okay for 'some people', but that government permission, government mandated training and government mandated conditions must be met before it is kinda-sorta okay to grant the privilege to carry.
A massive difference.
You are correct in that the Arizona Constitution provided no authority for state government to 'impair' a citizens right to bear arms, as stated in Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution.
This is coupled with the absolute prohibition placed on government by Amendment II to the US Constitution.
A clear win in Arizona for individual liberty.
Personally, I liked open carry, but then I'm somewhat of an old gunslinger anyway. Used to be no one would bat an eye if you had open leather ... but times change and you gotta be willing to change with them (within the limits of course).
Have to see how this one is going to work for us. I have some concerns but what will be will be (figuratively speaking). Just don't know what a cop is supposed to do when he has to presume that everyone he approaches is armed with a gun or a knife. Been a lot of stabbings around here lately ... don't see a lot of signs going up saying "no knives allowed".
[xx(]
You can still carry openly if you choose.
As to your concerns, you have previously expressed them and those concerns and desires place you as a gun-owning gun controller, to a degree.
Now, on the the 'horrific scenario of our poor police being confronted with a manifestation of individual liberty', as intended and stated in our Constitutions...
Any cop should approach every situation with due diligence and a sense of officer safety. That state of mind presupposes that those who may be contacted are potentially dangerous.
Guess what, it is a non-issue and this should be no different for police than current mindset.
As to knives, are we venturing into government knife-control now?
This actually bolsters my point, in that officers should already be cautious of potential dangerous contacts, whether that danger be in their potential use of guns, knives, clubs, icepicks, fists or feet in the commission of a bad-act.
I thought government was deep into knife control .. banned that nasty button knife didn't they? I think in order to bring one across the border you have to break the spring so it doesn't jump out and hurt someone.
As to my concerns, you can get over that most any time now .. you made your point .. which is way off what my intent was. [:(]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Well, I call this amazing progress, although I know that most here will not agree.
The AZ governor just signed a bill stating that no concealed carry license is required to carry a concealed firearm in AZ. To me this is progress. Now I am well aware that because of the US Constitutional 2A and the constitution of some states (AZ? I don't know. Might check) there never should have been a requirement for lawful citizens to address their AZ government and have to ask for written permission to carry a concealed firearm. In theory that is how it should have been all along. But I deal in reality. I deal with what I have at hand. And the liberal left long ago highjacked our constitution. We have therefore lost so very many of our constitutional rights.
Passing laws giving us our constitutional rights back is at least one way to get those rights back. Such laws allow us to once again enjoy some of our constitutional rights all the while we work to get Americans to finally realize the the constitution gave us those rights long ago. When and if that happens, we can get rid of all the laws that did give us our constitutional rights back and just rely on the constitution for our rights. That is how it should have been all along.
To me such behavior is much better than going to a shooting war with our government.
But what do I know.
This return to constitutional carry is distinctly different from the 'gun privilege' laws that you are attempting to link to this, trfox.
Those type laws that you are a proponent of are clear unconstitutional restrictions on the RKBA and they are even more insidious than prohibitions, since they cement in the psyche of America that the carrying of firearms is 'kinda-sorta' okay for 'some people', but that government permission, government mandated training and government mandated conditions must be met before it is kinda-sorta okay to grant the privilege to carry.
A massive difference.
You are correct in that the Arizona Constitution provided no authority for state government to 'impair' a citizens right to bear arms, as stated in Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution.
This is coupled with the absolute prohibition placed on government by Amendment II to the US Constitution.
A clear win in Arizona for individual liberty.
In red above.
I of course expected you to find some reason to show your "superior" knowledge and find reason for disagreement between us. See below:
Posted by tr fox 4-16-10 at 8:31;16 PM
Well, I call this amazing progress, although I know that most here will not agree.
You insist on misrepresenting my positions. I am not a "proponent" of concealed carry laws. I believe the US Constitution 2A should be recognized as the only "concealed carry law" that a peaceful, lawful citizen needs.
Now, back to the world we live in. Because the left has stolen most of our constitution rights from us (including the 2A) most average American citizens cannot enjoy all their gun rights until we take back our constitution.
So the question has to be asked "Do I go without the right to concealed carry until a few generations from now when hopefully we get our constitution back or do I enjoy the right of concealed carry now due to a state law granting that right?"
If you want to be an extreme purist, totally detached from the real work (as if that were possible) then of course you will chose to go without your concealed carry right until we get our 2A rights back. In my case I am a realist and live in the world as it exists. I am happy to have a concealed carry license so that I can carry concealed until we get our 2A back.
In addition, since you claim to be a peace officer I assume there is a reasonable chance you have off duty concealed carry rights. If true, as you go about your off duty activity, be advised that you are only legally carrying concealed because of a law/agency rule passed that gives your department officers the right to carry concealed off duty. That would be your carry "license." If what I just said is true, and yet you still criticize me for wanting my concealed carry license, then you are a huge hypocrite.
well said fox. by the way the veterans medical centers have sings up now no knifes or wepons alloud
Thanks.
Congratulations for Arizonians on this 'victory'.
How much NICER it would have been had they merely RECOGNIZED the supremacy of the Second Amendment..both from the State AND the fuds.
These people didn't honor the Second...they passed another law.
I utterly fail to see just HOW laws piled on laws piled on LAWS has a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
Congratulations for Arizonians on this 'victory'.
How much NICER it would have been had they merely RECOGNIZED the supremacy of the Second Amendment..both from the State AND the fuds.
These people didn't honor the Second...they passed another law.
The typical 'glass half full or half empty' scenario!!! I see this as progress and you see the opposite. I am more of a 'positive' person, you appear to be a 'negative' person. Am I wrong?[?]
Can the government do ANYTHING right in your opinion???[?]
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I utterly fail to see just HOW laws piled on laws piled on LAWS has a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
Congratulations for Arizonians on this 'victory'.
How much NICER it would have been had they merely RECOGNIZED the supremacy of the Second Amendment..both from the State AND the fuds.
These people didn't honor the Second...they passed another law.
The typical 'glass half full or half empty' scenario!!! I see this as progress and you see the opposite. I am more of a 'positive' person, you appear to be a 'negative' person. Am I wrong?[?]
Can the government do ANYTHING right in your opinion???[?]
The way I see it, the Arizona Governor was handed a glass that was half full or half empty, that was served up by previous administrations that she had no control over. She could have just put the glass down or filled it up the rest of the way, but she chose to try to unravel something that was dumped in her lap. If only the Arizona economy was as "easy" to work with. Was reading the comments on her facebook section the other day and while most of the comments were very favorable, a couple of vulgar comments were also posted .. and interesting to find that a click on the comment poster's facebook brought up a slew of posted photos the top of which is a picture of the POTUS. Typical I would say .. a troll at best would be a kind category to put him in .. not unlike some I have come to know that have limited vocabulary's and questionable IQ's.
[8D]
I utterly fail to see just HOW laws piled on laws piled on LAWS has a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
Congratulations for Arizonians on this 'victory'.
How much NICER it would have been had they merely RECOGNIZED the supremacy of the Second Amendment..both from the State AND the fuds.
These people didn't honor the Second...they passed another law.
I have already described in detail how I agree with you but still am grateful for laws that finally start to give me back my constitution rights. Yet in spite of my explanation, you still rant, gripe, find fault and complain. It appears that is all you are good at doing.
In regards to the above in red, are you really naive enough to mention the concept of "nicer" in regarding our constitution rights and getting our constitution back? Nice is not part of that equation. Who has the most power and who can influence the most people and laws is what will win for us. "Nicer" has nothing to do with it.
Hhhehehehehehhhehehh..what a card you are.
You said "they passed another law", is there something wrong with that. I thought a 'Republic' was a country governed by laws? Do want a 'law less' country, a country which is not a 'Republic' our founders started?? Just curious![:)]
Thought that was unusual. Most bills I thought take affect 30 days after they are signed. Unless that only relates to those with an "emergency" clause attached?
[?]
Your...and the elites...propensity to IGNORE the 'laws' that were set down a couple hundred -odd years ago is a sign of YOUR failures, Jim...not mine.
HB,
I WISH it were that easy! But it is not. I will ask AGAIN, 'Has there ever been a time or place in this world where this ideal you promote has ever existed????'
Buy the way, I have not 'failed'. I have been able to change both laws and policies in 'our' favor over the years, have you????????[}:)]
Why do you continually REFUSE to answer the questions I ask???
I prefer another way. Allow the slimy pukes in power to attempt to cram a total gun ban down the necks of the 3 percent. People like you, Jim, will accede to it...just the nature of some people.
People like me, Jim, suffer under the lash of being made into a criminal EVERY TIME we wish to buy another weapon...we take PERSONALLY what rolls off your back.
I DON'T LIKE BEING MADE INTO A CRIMINAL by slimebags in state capitals...merely because I wish to exercise a basic RIGHT.
I prefer they push the game to the limit...and let the victors take all the winnings.
That would set up another cycle...and for awhile, until people like you got in charge again, the government would not be powerful enough to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens as they go about their daily lives.
THAT is the point where the 'ideal' starts to once again become radical, whacky, strung-out..the point where those that fear their fellow man more then they fear government get control and force their twisted viewpoints on an entire culture.
I know that the people do not want a "preemptive strike" on the government (shades of Okie City) and hopefully the people will never allow another by the government (Waco), but short of a shock and awe by the government against the people of this nation any lines drawn are in the sand and cannot be held as valid battle grounds.
I doubt seriously there will ever be another civil war in this nation, at least not like the north Vs south. The future of civil war has been changed by Iraq and Alfganistan. Even Vietnam changed the way that war is conducted to a large extent. Any future civil war here will be a hide and seek revolution. I see no winner's in a war like that, but I definitely see the probablity of it happening.
[V]
Junior Member
I am not infighting.
I am revealing the enemies of freedom, liberty, and the Republic.
Those that cannot read a few simple words, reflect upon the AWSOME accomplishments of the Founders, and WHY they did what they did, and come to the proper conclusions is simply so brain-numbed by government propaganda as to be worthless to the Republic.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is a DIRCT ORDER to the government... a warning, and a threat.
Those that cannot understand that...are standing on the other side of a vast canyon then I.
quote:fyrfinder
Junior Member
I am not infighting.
I am revealing the enemies of freedom, liberty, and the Republic.
Those that cannot read a few simple words, reflect upon the AWSOME accomplishments of the Founders, and WHY they did what they did, and come to the proper conclusions is simply so brain-numbed by government propaganda as to be worthless to the Republic.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is a DIRCT ORDER to the government... a warning, and a threat.
Those that cannot understand that...are standing on the other side of a vast canyon then I.
I'm still in a learning curve [8D] Just hate to see energies wasted over differing view points. I value every opinion whether I agree or not. If everyone shared the same view we would not have this forum or need this discussion. Keep up the good work. [:)]
Do you TRULY think the Founders fought a war that began when the British marched to confiscate powder, shot and weapons...wrote a Second Amendment to PROHIBIT government from EVER doing it again..then intended us to quietly stand by as this present form of government does EXACTLY THE SAME THING ????
Resistance to confiscation starts long BEFORE the actual 'act' takes place...or will be of no account.
Where do you find the word 'opinion' in the desperate need to contain government behind a wall of armed citizens...unencumbered by laws, regulations, rules, and restrictions designed to pull Liberties teeth ?
Do you TRULY think the Founders fought a war that began when the British marched to confiscate powder, shot and weapons...wrote a Second Amendment to PROHIBIT government from EVER doing it again..then intended us to quietly stand by as this present form of government does EXACTLY THE SAME THING ????
Resistance to confiscation starts long BEFORE the actual 'act' takes place...or will be of no account.
Okay, help me here ... that is not your opinion, it is your facts, evidence or declaration? I am sure it is the product of much research of consitutional laws and practice, which I can't lay much claim to. I read, digest and form my own opinion based upon what is presented to me. Best I can do. [^]
That intention was for the purpose of an unorganized Militia...a civilian force superior in strength to any standing army formed for purposes of American defence...and turned against the people by a despot.
There is endless information out there PROVING what the Founders reasons were for the Second Amendment....
and it was not for hunting.
It was not for sporting purposes.
It was not to protect shotguns.
It was not to protect gentlemen strolling the moors.
It was, pure and simply, to protect America from the ravages of tyranny..ever again. Its sole purpose was a deadly dagger aimed at the throat of any little Napoleon that happened along...the threat of the general public raising up and taking the Republic away from him.
Distrust those that insist that it is a good thing for government to control Liberties teeth.
It was the Founders intention to have every man armed.
That intention was for the purpose of an unorganized Militia...a civilian force superior in strength to any standing army formed for purposes of American defence...and turned against the people by a despot.
There is endless information out there PROVING what the Founders reasons were for the Second Amendment....
and it was not for hunting.
It was not for sporting purposes.
It was not to protect shotguns.
It was not to protect gentlemen strolling the moors.
It was, pure and simply, to protect America from the ravages of tyranny..ever again. Its sole purpose was a deadly dagger aimed at the throat of any little Napoleon that happened along...the threat of the general public raising up and taking the Republic away from him.
Distrust those that insist that it is a good thing for government to control Liberties teeth.
Agree with all of that. Question is can we ever return to that? We are not there now .. we are capable of fending off a direct assault aimed at us, but how do we change the tide of legislation that is never ending?
[?]
My opinion...and it is mine alone;
The system has moved too far along the path of tyranny to accomplish ANYTHING except slightly slow the inevitable course towards the government killing fields.
Given that is true...the BEST course of action for decent citizens is to step OUT of the political process...and tend to yourself and your loved ones. Prepare yourself and as many others as you can for the hard times coming...and be ready to step into the breech when it is time.
quote:Agree with all of that. Question is can we ever return to that? We are not there now .. we are capable of fending off a direct assault aimed at us, but how do we change the tide of legislation that is never ending?
My opinion...and it is mine alone;
The system has moved too far along the path of tyranny to accomplish ANYTHING except slightly slow the inevitable course towards the government killing fields.
Given that is true...the BEST course of action for decent citizens is to step OUT of the political process...and tend to yourself and your loved ones. Prepare yourself and as many others as you can for the hard times coming...and be ready to step into the breech when it is time.
That pretty well sums up the thought that I had. Thanks. [:)]
Changed the laws, did you, Jim ? Yeah...I reckon you and the NRA sure have. 20,000+++ laws you have 'changed' the simple language of the Second Amendment with.
I prefer another way. Allow the slimy pukes in power to attempt to cram a total gun ban down the necks of the 3 percent. People like you, Jim, will accede to it...just the nature of some people.
People like me, Jim, suffer under the lash of being made into a criminal EVERY TIME we wish to buy another weapon...we take PERSONALLY what rolls off your back.
I DON'T LIKE BEING MADE INTO A CRIMINAL by slimebags in state capitals...merely because I wish to exercise a basic RIGHT.
I prefer they push the game to the limit...and let the victors take all the winnings.
That would set up another cycle...and for awhile, until people like you got in charge again, the government would not be powerful enough to interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens as they go about their daily lives.
THAT is the point where the 'ideal' starts to once again become radical, whacky, strung-out..the point where those that fear their fellow man more then they fear government get control and force their twisted viewpoints on an entire culture.
WRONG AGAIN, but this is the norm for you.[;)]
You are truly 'clueless'. You talk about this silly 'holier than thou' stuff constantly but you will be the first to bow, whimper, and beg when they come for you. I learned along a time ago those who are truly 'macho' don't have go around puffing their chest out and talking 'tough' like you do. You are just trying to impress people and get those who read this to 'believe' through your bragging, threats, and put downs that you are a real 'tough guy'. But experience has shown people that the 'loud ones' are not the 'tough ones'!!![;)] But I'll keep your secret![:D]
So I am a coward..Fine...you got me figured out. What is going to be YOUR excuse...for crawling under the bed, Jim ?
OH..yeah. You won't...you will be running with those that intend to dig the trenches for the killing fields they fully expect to implement one of these days.