Arizona legalizes carrying concealed gun without a permit

[Flagg]

If I were a criminal in an unlicensed CCW state, I'd just assume everyone had a gun and shoot them in the back of the head before grabbing their wallet or after sneaking into their home in the middle of the night before stealing their stuff.

[Broomstick]

All the CCW permit seems to really gets the average permit holder is that the DA has one less weapons charge he can tack onto to the murder, manslaughter, or aggravated assault and battery charges he's thinking of charging the permit-holder with; should the permit-holder ever actually feel the need to draw his weapon in anger. Permit or not, if you shoot somebody, the police will arrest you, and you will be treated as a potentially dangerous criminal. Doesn't matter what the other guy was doing to have gotten shot, that's for the investigators and attorneys to sort out.

I know several people who used firearms in self defense. Not all of them were arrested for doing so although yes, they were questioned by police and there was an investigation. Usually, it was some VERY clear situation, like in one case three guys breaking in the front door of a house and getting a shotgun blast to the face, or in another someone being shot in the leg by someone and returning fire with better aim (the survivor there got taken to the hospital first, then questioned by police). Then again, all the people I know who have fired a gun in self-defense immediately surrendered when police showed up and cooperated fully and politely, which goes a long way to making the police much less tense about the whole situation.

I've also known a number of people who did not cooperate in such circumstances and yes, they were arrested.

It should also be emphasized that, with the crazy-quilt of gun laws in this country, how you will be treated after hurting someone else in self-defense will vary widely. Besides local laws, factors such as gender, race, neighborhood, and the mood of Mr. Police Officer will enter into the equation. When I was getting self-defense training I was told that no matter what after the dust settles expect to be arrested, even if all you did was punch someone in the nose. If you're not, well, that's a happy thing, but if you are, don't argue just cooperate, you'll be treated much better if you do.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

All the CCW permit seems to really gets the average permit holder is that the DA has one less weapons charge he can tack onto to the murder, manslaughter, or aggravated assault and battery charges he's thinking of charging the permit-holder with; should the permit-holder ever actually feel the need to draw his weapon in anger. Permit or not, if you shoot somebody, the police will arrest you, and you will be treated as a potentially dangerous criminal. Doesn't matter what the other guy was doing to have gotten shot, that's for the investigators and attorneys to sort out.

I know several people who used firearms in self defense. Not all of them were arrested for doing so although yes, they were questioned by police and there was an investigation. Usually, it was some VERY clear situation, like in one case three guys breaking in the front door of a house and getting a shotgun blast to the face, or in another someone being shot in the leg by someone and returning fire with better aim (the survivor there got taken to the hospital first, then questioned by police). Then again, all the people I know who have fired a gun in self-defense immediately surrendered when police showed up and cooperated fully and politely, which goes a long way to making the police much less tense about the whole situation.

That's what is taught . . . that one should be fully cooperative (only don't make statements about the situation until you're 'downtown' and you have an attorney present. And whatever you do, don't touch anything at the crime scene) and polite to a fault; since when the police show up, all they know for sure is that there's been a shooting and the shooter is still on the scene.

It should also be emphasized that, with the crazy-quilt of gun laws in this country, how you will be treated after hurting someone else in self-defense will vary widely. Besides local laws, factors such as gender, race, neighborhood, and the mood of Mr. Police Officer will enter into the equation. When I was getting self-defense training I was told that no matter what after the dust settles expect to be arrested, even if all you did was punch someone in the nose. If you're not, well, that's a happy thing, but if you are, don't argue just cooperate, you'll be treated much better if you do.

That's also what I've been taught. Expect to be arrested, and don't be belligerent or confrontational about it because Mr. Police Officer is just doing his job.

[Sea Skimmer]

If I were a criminal in an unlicensed CCW state, I'd just assume everyone had a gun and shoot them in the back of the head before grabbing their wallet or after sneaking into their home in the middle of the night before stealing their stuff.

Then you’d be so plainly psychopathically insane that you’d be murdering people anyway. The average criminal is not looking for a murder rap sheet just to rob a single random person who might have no money at all on them.

[Liberty]

But one thing I do know - the sight of someone carrying a gun would freak me out completely. I get freaked out when I see a police officer carrying a gun, but I suppress that because I know that police carry guns to protect people and that, so long as I don't commit a crime, they're on my side. Anyone else, though? It scares the heck out of me. Now of course, this is subjective, and I'm aware of that.

I must say, that's a rather unusual attitude for a Hoosier... our state has some of the most liberal (by which I mean loose) gun laws in the nation.

Seriously, you get freaked out when you see a police officer with a gun? In the US? They all carry guns.

I guess it's just that I'm very conscious of the reality that guns can kill people. VERY conscious. So even when I see a police officer, I'm very aware that he could shoot me, though I know he won't.

And yes, I know it's an unusual attitude for a Hoosier. But then, I have a lot of attitudes that are unusual for a Hoosier.

And also, my dad had guns growing up, and he used to take us to shooting ranges and to like gun festival days. Did we ever go hunting? No. Did dad ever hunt? No. Dad wanted us to learn to use guns so that we could fight back when the government tries to take over, second amendment and all that. So I've been around guns.

[Broomstick]

And yes, I know it's an unusual attitude for a Hoosier. But then, I have a lot of attitudes that are unusual for a Hoosier.

That makes two of us, though I suspect we're on opposite sides of some issues.

And also, my dad had guns growing up, and he used to take us to shooting ranges and to like gun festival days. Did we ever go hunting? No. Did dad ever hunt? No. Dad wanted us to learn to use guns so that we could fight back when the government tries to take over, second amendment and all that. So I've been around guns.

Ah, that might be part of it - sounds like in your family the main purpose of guns was seen to be killing people. In my family guns were tools - the cops had them as part of their gear just like radios and handcuffs and squad cars, and the hunters, well, guns meant food on the table. Which might be why, even though I'm a supporter of gun rights (with some limits) I don't happen to own any - I'm not a cop and I'm not a hunter. I just don't have a reason to own that particular tool, any more than I own a table saw or a hydraulic lift or a printing press. Two pretty different ways of viewing a gun.

[FSTargetDrone]

I'm not entirely conversant with Pennsylvania gun laws and carry particulars, but apparently Philadelphia does not allow open carry without some kind of restrictions, if at all. I do know that if I saw someone walking the streets of the city openly carrying a firearm (or a knife or some other obvious weapon), I'd probably call the police. Conversely, I do see occasionally hunters around this area where I live (Philadelphia suburbs) and that generally doesn't concern me (assuming it's actually hunting season).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

:lol: If I were a criminal in an unlicensed CCW state, I'd just assume everyone had a gun and shoot them in the back of the head before grabbing their wallet or after sneaking into their home in the middle of the night before stealing their stuff.

This, presumably, is why you're not a criminal. The average criminal would like to avoid a murder conviction. Beside that, whether or not a potential victim is armed probably doesn't figure too highly in a robber's calculus. What they tend to look for is how attentive the victim is, if the victim has anything easy to grab, and how isolated the victim is. Whether or not the victim is armed is entirely immaterial if the victim isn't aware of his or her surroundings.

For example: If you had a handgun hidden in an IWB holster, but you were strolling down the street, listening to an iPod and only looking straight ahead and neither to the left, nor to the right . . . the outcome of your encounter with me, as a robber, is that I'll come away with your iPod and a shiny new gun to fence at the local disreputable pawn shop. You, however, will need a new pair of underwear. No shooting needed. Unless you made an ill-advised, panicked grab for your gun. In which case, you've just made the encounter personal and you'll be needing a lot more than new underpants.

Though, to be fair, some criminals do engage in lower-margin, higher-violence crimes. Home invasions fall into this category. Instead of sneaking into your house at night, I just gather a few of my best friends, and rope in a young, comely, female accomplice to knock on your door and ask for gas money or something similarly stupid. If you're not paying attention and you open the door for my accomplice, it still won't matter if you're armed or not; because by the time you've realized something's wrong I've already got my piece screwed up your nostril and my friends are in your house tying up your wife.

In neither case was there any reason for me, as a criminal, to preemptively off someone just because they might be packing heat. All it takes is for me to find someone who's walking around with their metaphorical pants down around their ankles . . . which is the default state of mind for the vast majority of people.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm not entirely conversant with Pennsylvania gun laws and carry particulars, but apparently Philadelphia does not allow open carry without some kind of restrictions, if at all. I do know that if I saw someone walking the streets of the city openly carrying a firearm (or a knife or some other obvious weapon), I'd probably call the police. Conversely, I do see occasionally hunters around this area where I live (Philadelphia suburbs) and that generally doesn't concern me (assuming it's actually hunting season).

In PA open carry is legal without a license everywhere except in vehicles, in the city of Philadelphia, and on certain government property. Mainly this is courts, state parks (you can have a gun in the vehicle, but not on your person), jails and all federal lands.

For carrying in vehicles, in Philadelphia and for concealed carry anywhere you need a state LTCF. Possession of a LTCF does not mandate that you must carry concealed however, unlike some states which require lisence holders to conceal, even if open carry is legal.

But in reality, carrying openly is just asking for a hassle, so most people conceal carry in any remotely urbanized area and its not like its hard to get a LTCF in PA. We are a ‘shall issue’ state which means they need a major reason to deny it, and that basically comes down to either you having a serious criminal record, or being totally unable to find a character witness who will vouch for you.

[Alyeska]

In Montana, open carry is legal so long as the local jurisdiction doesn't restrict it. But as others have said, its a hassle and very few people bother. Concealed carry is worded a little differently. Concealed carry only exists within city limits and certain logging camps. Outside of city limits, it just doesn't matter. What this means is you need a permit to carry concealed inside the city, but you do not need a permit to carry concealed outside of the city limits.

This is largely so that people can carry a weapon while in the wilderness without having to keep it plainly visible. This makes carrying a gun under a coat, inside of a backpack, or inside of a hip pack legal without a permit.

When I go hiking, I could care less about other people. Its the predators that concern me. And so my pistol stays at the bottom of my hiking pack. Concealed, but legal. Out of sight so it doesn't disturb other people.

[gizmojumpjet]

When I go hiking, I could care less about other people. Its the predators that concern me. And so my pistol stays at the bottom of my hiking pack. Concealed, but legal. Out of sight so it doesn't disturb other people.

So, your anti-predator pistol stays where's it's absolutely useless in that role?

[Darth Wong]

Ah, that might be part of it - sounds like in your family the main purpose of guns was seen to be killing people. In my family guns were tools - the cops had them as part of their gear just like radios and handcuffs and squad cars, and the hunters, well, guns meant food on the table. Which might be why, even though I'm a supporter of gun rights (with some limits) I don't happen to own any - I'm not a cop and I'm not a hunter. I just don't have a reason to own that particular tool, any more than I own a table saw or a hydraulic lift or a printing press. Two pretty different ways of viewing a gun.

I think there's a lot of overlap, though. Take the whole magazine-capacity issue. A lot of the gun toters think it's ridiculous to limit magazine capacities, but why? Why does a hunter or a sport shooter need a 30-round magazine when a 5-round magazine will do? Those big magazines were originally invented for military purposes, for obvious reasons. I think there's a lot of people who think that yeah, guns are a tool ... and they're also for Fighting Back Against the UN Black Helicopters.

[Aaron]

I think there's a lot of overlap, though. Take the whole magazine-capacity issue. A lot of the gun toters think it's ridiculous to limit magazine capacities, but why? Why does a hunter or a sport shooter need a 30-round magazine when a 5-round magazine will do? Those big magazines were originally invented for military purposes, for obvious reasons. I think there's a lot of people who think that yeah, guns are a tool ... and they're also for Fighting Back Against the UN Black Helicopters.

Folks I've met who lament the 5 round mags usually bring it up as "it sucks out the fun." As in being able to fire off thirty rounds at a time is more entertaining then five. Personally, as someone who has spent many an hour loading thirty round mags, 5 is better.

[Gil Hamilton]

So, your anti-predator pistol stays where's it's absolutely useless in that role?

Predators tend to warn you first. It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where there is a dangerous predator that comes entirely out of the blue, particularly where Alyeska is from.

In PA open carry is legal without a license everywhere except in vehicles, in the city of Philadelphia, and on certain government property. Mainly this is courts, state parks (you can have a gun in the vehicle, but not on your person), jails and all federal lands.

For carrying in vehicles, in Philadelphia and for concealed carry anywhere you need a state LTCF. Possession of a LTCF does not mandate that you must carry concealed however, unlike some states which require lisence holders to conceal, even if open carry is legal.

But in reality, carrying openly is just asking for a hassle, so most people conceal carry in any remotely urbanized area and its not like its hard to get a LTCF in PA. We are a ‘shall issue’ state which means they need a major reason to deny it, and that basically comes down to either you having a serious criminal record, or being totally unable to find a character witness who will vouch for you.

In Pittsburgh, openly carrying a firearm will be a police magnet and involve alot of people avoiding you. In fact, I would like to be a fly on the wall if someone told a Pittsburgh cop that open carry is legal and that they aren't up to anything, just carrying a gun, and expected the cop to tip his cap and walk away.

[Tsyroc]

I think there's a lot of overlap, though. Take the whole magazine-capacity issue. A lot of the gun toters think it's ridiculous to limit magazine capacities, but why? Why does a hunter or a sport shooter need a 30-round magazine when a 5-round magazine will do? Those big magazines were originally invented for military purposes, for obvious reasons. I think there's a lot of people who think that yeah, guns are a tool ... and they're also for Fighting Back Against the UN Black Helicopters.

In most cases guns used for hunting have their carrying capacity limited by law. Whether it's a magazine or internal capacity. Game wardens will often check this at the same time they are checking hunting licenses and quotas.

Personally, when I target shoot I kind of like the lower capacity weapons. I even enjoy single shots, but then I'm usually having fun trying to be more accurate and not trying to see how many rounds I can get off at one time.

I've never understood why some people want more and more ammo in their handguns. In my head I tend to blame it on Lethal Weapon because that's the first film I remember making a point about how much ammo a Berretta 9mm could cary and compared it to the six shooter that Murtaugh was carrying. Considering that Murtaugh could do that snap headshot the six shot revolver was more than good enough for his job. That is until he started getting involved in crazy gun battles with Riggs. So those crazy assed gun battles kind of go with the whole fighting the UN Black Helicopters thing.

Other than for the anti-gov wackos I think that in most cases the magazine capacity can be just as much of a "dick size" thing as how big the caliber of the gun the person is carrying. It just makes them feel better to have what they want, and it's easier than putting in the time to learn how to be a good shot.

I'm with Kendal when it comes to reloading multi-round magazines being a pain in the ass. So is collecting all the brass from all the spent shells. Sure it's fun to do the "machine gun" bit every now and then but it's not something I'd want to do very often.

[gizmojumpjet]

Predators tend to warn you first. It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where there is a dangerous predator that comes entirely out of the blue, particularly where Alyeska is from.

What? Mountain lions aren't ambush predators now? And angry momma bears are now issuing official Intent to Maul Your Face advisories before proceeding to fuck your shit up?

What an amazing world we live in!

[Gil Hamilton]

What? Mountain lions aren't ambush predators now? And angry momma bears are now issuing official Intent to Maul Your Face advisories before proceeding to fuck your shit up?

What an amazing world we live in!

Mountain lions perhaps, but mother bears in fact generally do give Intent to Maul notices before they attack you (growling, posturing, rearing back, et cetera). Certaintly enough for a person to back away or get their gun. The point is that it is a very rare situation where you'll encounter a predator but you won't have plenty of time to get your gun out of your bookbag. You make it sound like unless you have your gun at a seconds notice, a bear will magically appear out of nowhere on your face.

[Formless]

Most predators aren't interested in hunting humans-- we're not the prey they evolved to hunt. The real danger is from them defending their territory or their young, and in those cases yes they do try to warn you off first before attacking.

There are a few cases of mountain lions who do hunt humans, and in those cases you don't have much chance unless you have a friend with you to watch your back (literally). However, those are the exception to the rule, and quite rare.

[Sea Skimmer]

In Pittsburgh, openly carrying a firearm will be a police magnet and involve alot of people avoiding you. In fact, I would like to be a fly on the wall if someone told a Pittsburgh cop that open carry is legal and that they aren't up to anything, just carrying a gun, and expected the cop to tip his cap and walk away.

Yeah well PA is one of the most corrupt states in the Union from top to bottom, so what do you want? In Philly we had cops tell us our fucking covered charcoal grill was an illegal fire at one point, but we stood firm and eventually after twenty plus other cops and the fire department had showed up a supervisor just told them all to leave and said it was fine.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah well PA is one of the most corrupt states in the Union from top to bottom, so what do you want? In Philly we had cops tell us our fucking covered charcoal grill was an illegal fire at one point, but we stood firm and eventually after twenty plus other cops and the fire department had showed up a supervisor just told them all to leave and said it was fine.

I'm not sure that is corruption. What are the odds that a person carrying a gun in Pittsburgh isn't:

(A) Up to no good. Or
(B) Hoping law enforcement will stop him and cause a 2nd Amendment incident.

If a person has a gun in downtown Pittsburgh, the cops are about to arrive since someone has already phoned in that there is a crazy with a gun on the streets outside their building. There is no way it won't turn into an incident.

[Alyeska]

When I go hiking, I could care less about other people. Its the predators that concern me. And so my pistol stays at the bottom of my hiking pack. Concealed, but legal. Out of sight so it doesn't disturb other people.

So, your anti-predator pistol stays where's it's absolutely useless in that role?

Useless, no. I always hike in a group. One of us always has bear spray. The other always has a pistol. The bear spray is immediately available. The pistol can be reached relatively quickly given its in a pocket of a hip pack. The biggest defense is simply by being in a group. Predators react differently to larger groups of people.

BTW, I don't even chamber the pistol. I don't live life expecting to be in a quick draw shootout at any second. Even when I carry a gun for protection, it remains unchambered for safety.

[TheFeniX]

I think there's a lot of overlap, though. Take the whole magazine-capacity issue. A lot of the gun toters think it's ridiculous to limit magazine capacities, but why? Why does a hunter or a sport shooter need a 30-round magazine when a 5-round magazine will do? Those big magazines were originally invented for military purposes, for obvious reasons. I think there's a lot of people who think that yeah, guns are a tool ... and they're also for Fighting Back Against the UN Black Helicopters.

Many popular firearms themselves were invented for military purposes, so what?

Why should they limit capacity on magazines? Because some people prefer to load smaller ones? Because someone using a firearm in the commission of a crime is too stupid to reload? My Beretta magazine is capable of holding 17 rounds. Is there some reason to limit that to 10? Will it reduce crime? Will it prevent accidents? Is there any practical reason to restrict access to a piece of scrap metal and a spring other than saying "people don't necessarily need it?"

As said, most game hunting requires limited magazines, but in any form of competition shooting: capacity is king, which is why single-stacked .45s are given their own class. Otherwise I could have never come close to competing with the kid running his custom 9mm (he still kicked my ass). I also had 6-8 mags on me during any given course. He could usually get by with 2. As for general shooting, why shouldn't I be allowed to load up 30 rounds into my Mini-14 and blast away? Is there something inherently more dangerous in having 1 30 round magazine than 3 10 round magazine for a semi-auto rifle?

[His Divine Shadow]

Mag limits are useless because they cannot be enforced and even when they do have mag limits they are at some number like 10 or 5, which is plenty enough or some whacko anyway.

Getting around the limit is very easy, you can un-gimp fixed mags with a dremel or similar tool depending on how the mag has been gimped, even then you can probably buy a mag from a country where they don't have limits, like most of europe and it wouldn't be a problem since most countries don't have any laws on mags. I personally have bought many reduced 10rd mags from america and I fix them with 10 minutes of work.

We don't have any mag limits in eurpe for sports guns, only when hunting and even then thats mostly for semiauto guns, i.e. have a gimped mag for hunting, and regular ones for regular shooting on the range. Manual repeaters have no limits here, for the most part, I can't answer for every single country.

Plenty of popular shooting sports would be gutted too here with mag limits like 5, like IPSC where you can go through 60 shots in a single stage sometimes.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I think there's a lot of overlap, though. Take the whole magazine-capacity issue. A lot of the gun toters think it's ridiculous to limit magazine capacities, but why? Why does a hunter or a sport shooter need a 30-round magazine when a 5-round magazine will do? Those big magazines were originally invented for military purposes, for obvious reasons. I think there's a lot of people who think that yeah, guns are a tool ... and they're also for Fighting Back Against the UN Black Helicopters.

Many popular firearms themselves were invented for military purposes, so what?

Why should they limit capacity on magazines? Because some people prefer to load smaller ones? Because someone using a firearm in the commission of a crime is too stupid to reload? My Beretta magazine is capable of holding 17 rounds. Is there some reason to limit that to 10? Will it reduce crime? Will it prevent accidents? Is there any practical reason to restrict access to a piece of scrap metal and a spring other than saying "people don't necessarily need it?"

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

And why shouldn't they limit magazine capacity for civilian-market handguns? Because some beer-swilling nuts think that they're going to get into high-round shootouts with dirty Mexicans/Negroes/Evil Gub'mint/UN stormtroopers/the gun-grabbing New World Order Illuminati bad guys? Most self-defense shooting scenarios are resolved in five rounds. Five. Rounds. Not five magazines, Five. Rounds. Not ten, not thirteen, not fifteen, seventeen, nor thirty. Five. It may be even less than that. And the range? Under seven yards. Frequently under ten feet. You couldn't possibly empty a seventeen round magazine into someone attacking you from ten feet away. Unless you're still shooting after they're down and they've stopped moving. In which case, that's not self-defense, that's Murder One.

As said, most game hunting requires limited magazines, but in any form of competition shooting: capacity is king, which is why single-stacked .45s are given their own class.

If they're willing to give seven to eight round .45 Auto guns their own class, then why not restructure competition shooting towards a "civilian" magazine capacity instead of a "law-enforcement" magazine capacity? And if high-capacity magazines are essential to competition shooting, then why not impose a $20 tax and some paperwork to own them and prosecute anyone who isn't a FFL holder that tries to sell them?

As for general shooting, why shouldn't I be allowed to load up 30 rounds into my Mini-14 and blast away? Is there something inherently more dangerous in having 1 30 round magazine than 3 10 round magazine for a semi-auto rifle?

And why shouldn't you be restricted to ten-round magazines? You're not fighting a war, and your chances of being personally involved in one (unless you are active duty, reserve, or National Guard) are minute. Just because something is fun doesn't mean people should be allowed to do it with wild abandon.

[Coyote]

Anyone can concealed carry without training? Stupid squared. And I'm another one of the gun owners saying this.

It's one of the reasons why we can't get nationwide-accepted concealed carry laws: they differ from state to state, sometimes wildly. Arizona (apparantly) lets any moron carry concealed; but other states have stringent standards to be met before getting a CCW (and then everyone in between). So California, for example, won't trust a CCW from Arizona or other states because the lack of universal standards precludes it.