Arizona legalizes carrying concealed gun without a permit

[Beowulf]

I'm not advocating banning anything. I'm saying the criteria for banning should be consistant.

I'll even drop the grenade argument if it is distracting. Let's just stick with flamethrowers and Dragon's Breath shotgun shells. Why are those legal?

A) They serve no purpose in hunting
B) They are "destructive devices"

There is absolutely no federal law restricting who may buy, manufacture, or sell flamethrowers.

They may be destructive devices, but they aren't "Destructive Devices". It's actually a well defined term in US law.

As to why they're legal, the flamethrower, isn't a firearm, and as such isn't considered a gun. It does have reasonable agricultural uses, and also has significant military use as shown in WWII, thus making it fall under the Miller decision. It also isn't very often used in crimes (go ahead, find one instance of one being used in the US in the last 30 years).

[Formless]

I don't buy the, "Because I can control where a bullet goes" argument, ever hear of a ricochet? Or say even a buckshot shell?

Are you seriously suggesting that this guy doesn't have some control over where his shots go? Seriously? You obviously know jack shit about shotguns.

As for ricochet, that's one of the reasons the basic four safety rules say "know what's behind your target."

And of everyone who buys a shotgun goes through the exact same training Mr. Knapp does. Are you saying that nothing outside the shooter's DIRECT control (where I point the gun, when I fire the gun) affects the dispersal of the buckshot through the entire course of its trajectory?

Irrelevant. Outside influences are an issue no matter WHAT weapon you use. Mankind cannot control which way the wind blows. Your standards for what counts as "control" are so goddamn high literally no one can ever hope to fulfill them. With ANY weapon. Or even NON-weapons. Should we ban cars because extreme weather conditions make accidents more likely? Or should we drive more responsibly during bad weather?

What is the distinction between that and ensuring proper clearance for a grenade? If you're claiming the distinction is in a trigger, than what about a remote detonated grenade?

You cannot control an explosion, dipshit. Not without professional grade training, and even then there is risk. Are there no shades of gray in your black and white worldview?

[Gil Hamilton]

If something like that ever were to happen --which I am extremely dubious of, BTW-- then yes, IEDs of all sorts would come out of the woodwork. But apparantly this is not the point, is it?

A great many of your gun supporting brethren seem to see the strong possibility of a Suddenly Tyrannical US Government. I didn't make up the term "FEMA Concentration Camp", you know. Protection against the government has always been a time honored reason for owning guns amongst the NRA types.

Okay, I get it. You think I am "dancing around the point" that bans of certain kinds of weapons are Constitutional. OK, I see what you're angling at.

Of course certain types of weapons bans are Constititional; I never said otherwise. This is why I've been so confused about your point; you seem to act like this is some big "reveal" when I've stated all along that weapons like pipe bombs, IEDs, cannon, etc, were restricted and that this wa sreasonable. This is why I didn't get what you were so happy about: you seemed to revel in revealing something I never tried to hide.

You said above that if it was a weapons ban or a de facto weapons ban, it was unconstitutional. That includes everything.

Remember that for me, the term "gun" has a specific meaning. A "gun" is a crew-served weapons system, from machinegun up to a cannon. That is a "gun". When talking about military style smallarms, I do not use the term "gun", I use the term "weapon", or sometimes "rifles/pistols" and other specifics.

So when I say a "weapons ban is unconstitutional," I'm not talking about everything from pointy sticks to MIRVs. I'm talking about the subject at hand: man-portable, individual firearms.

Please, people use this trick all the time in seminars around here where, when in the midst of trying to worm their way out of something, they claim that in their department they use a certain term in a certain, specific way and that was the source of confusion, thus they weren't technically wrong, because in the jargon they very well made up on the spot, they are technically correct. It's called feigning ignorance by claiming expertise. I saw it the other day in a computational chemistry seminar and somehow I doubt when you saw the title of this thread you went "Arizona is legalizing crew serviced weapon systems without a permit?!" or think the political debate is "crew-served weapons control". So please lets debate honestly here, rather than pretending you don't know what a "gun" or "weapon" means and you were using a narrow peice of jargon.

But that would go against the notion of "keeping and bearing arms". You keep them with yourself. And again, in the Heller case, it was also stated that a gun kept disassembled was clearly not ready for home defense purposes and could not be counted as such. So the concept of having a gun nearby and ready to use is already accepted as part of the individual right; that was a lot about what Heller focused on: having a gun on hand for personal defense. Not locked at an armory five miles away.[/quote[
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You keep trying to call it a "militia weapon", then you claim that its for home defense. If the gun exists as part of duty in a militia, it doesn't matter if it ready for persoanl defense and it doesn't matter if it is in your militia's armory. It is a tool you carry when you are on duty, no? This isn't the 18th century anymore, you know, there is absolutely no reason why a militiaman needs to store his gun at home.

Besides, it says that the individual has the right to keep arms. It doesn't say anything about where they have the right to keep them. If you are going to take the militia route, that could easy mean that they have the right to keep them in their state militia's armory unless they are on active duty, doing whatever the hell a state militia does nowadays.

Though, frankly, it seems you are using the term "militia" to mean "ficticious organization that exists solely to let gun enthusiasts have guns without being affected by any gun control laws".

I'm saying it depends on the weapons. A ban on pipe bombs is reasonable, but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is not. And remember, the "ban" on machineguns and explosives is not really a true "ban", they are available for people who want to jump through the hoops to get the liscencing. Most people don't feel the need or want to go through the trouble. These are reasonable restrictions and I never claimed otherwise.

Then you concede the point, that you are 100% wrong when you claim that a weapons ban, including individual firearms, is unconstitutional. This is a subject about what is reasonable or not. YOU claim that a ban on semi-automatic rifles is unreasonable, but that's the debate, isn't it? Other people may think that banning semi-automatic rifles is entirely reasonable or that you should have to jump through alot of damn hoops before you are trusted to have one. Hence, this is a discussion about opinions, not the Constitution. That's what I'm establishing here. When a gun enthusiast says he has a Constitutional right to his firearm, he is either deliberately lying or mistaken, simply because any legal ban on that firearm just shifts his firearm out of the zone of what counts as bearing arms. After all, the Constitution says nothing about what arms you are allowed to bear and as we've established, it's not "any you want".

I think the problem here is you were not exactly aware of how I was employing the term "weapon". I was using it to specifically apply to individual firearms, and you were seing the word in the broader sense in that "weapon" is a category that encompasses many things.

And you are feigning ignorance by claiming expertise. Only a jackass would look at a sword and claim that it wasn't a weapon, or pretend that he didn't know what another person was talking about when they called it a weapon due to some jargon.

I accept the current firearms laws as they are and find them reasonable. Most gun owners are comfortable with them, also, and only a handful are arguing for total, unrestricted access. Remember, I would actually like seeing a few more requirements, mostly related to training, WRT firearms in the general public.

Then why do you throw your lot in with the zealots? How come you say things like this and argue in every damn gun control debate like you are one of the zealots? This reminds me of conservative jackasses who start with the claim "I don't agree with everything Bush did but..." and then proceeds to frantically defend everything Bush did without backdown to the point that it is clear that they agree with everything out of sheer principle.

[Coyote]

If something like that ever were to happen --which I am extremely dubious of, BTW-- then yes, IEDs of all sorts would come out of the woodwork. But apparantly this is not the point, is it?

A great many of your gun supporting brethren seem to see the strong possibility of a Suddenly Tyrannical US Government. I didn't make up the term "FEMA Concentration Camp", you know. Protection against the government has always been a time honored reason for owning guns amongst the NRA types.

Good thing I'm not one of them, then, huh? Oh, wait, you just assumed I am because I own guns. How thoughtful of you.

You said above that if it was a weapons ban or a de facto weapons ban, it was unconstitutional. That includes everything.

Remember that for me, the term "gun" has a specific meaning. A "gun" is a crew-served weapons system, from machinegun up to a cannon. That is a "gun". When talking about military style smallarms, I do not use the term "gun", I use the term "weapon", or sometimes "rifles/pistols" and other specifics.

So when I say a "weapons ban is unconstitutional," I'm not talking about everything from pointy sticks to MIRVs. I'm talking about the subject at hand: man-portable, individual firearms.

Please, people use this trick all the time in seminars around here where, when in the midst of trying to worm their way out of something, they claim that in their department they use a certain term in a certain, specific way and that was the source of confusion, thus they weren't technically wrong, because in the jargon they very well made up on the spot, they are technically correct. It's called feigning ignorance by claiming expertise.

Fuck you. I happen to be trained in exactly this manner, and you can ask any of the other military personnel on the board. A "gun" is a crew-served weapon system. That is a technical description used to describe a specific type of equipment to differentiate it from another piece of equipment. "Jargon" like that --technical descriptions-- are used by people in certain profession for a reason-- to be specific. But then I guess you'd expect a mechanic to take you seriously and treat you as a learned peer and equal if you took your car into the shop and explained that the "doohickey" and the "thingy-ma-bob" were broken.

I saw it the other day in a computational chemistry seminar and somehow I doubt when you saw the title of this thread you went "Arizona is legalizing crew serviced weapon systems without a permit?!" or think the political debate is "crew-served weapons control". So please lets debate honestly here, rather than pretending you don't know what a "gun" or "weapon" means and you were using a narrow peice of jargon.

"Gun" is the generic term applied by the general public who typically does not need to be so precise in their daily use of the term because it is not their profession. I have several years of experience telling me that "gun = crew served weapon" and I will tend to refer to firearms as "weapons" in this and other firearms-related threads (by all means, go find them. You'll see I am fairly consitant in this).

You're the one that tried to apply my use of the term "weapon" to every type of dangerous implement imagineable; others haven't had this problem.

But that would go against the notion of "keeping and bearing arms". You keep them with yourself. And again, in the Heller case, it was also stated that a gun kept disassembled was clearly not ready for home defense purposes and could not be counted as such. So the concept of having a gun nearby and ready to use is already accepted as part of the individual right; that was a lot about what Heller focused on: having a gun on hand for personal defense. Not locked at an armory five miles away.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You keep trying to call it a "militia weapon", then you claim that its for home defense.

Then what the fuck are militias expected to do, if not defend their fucking homes? Defend public parks?

If the gun exists as part of duty in a militia, it doesn't matter if it ready for persoanl defense and it doesn't matter if it is in your militia's armory. It is a tool you carry when you are on duty, no? This isn't the 18th century anymore, you know, there is absolutely no reason why a militiaman needs to store his gun at home.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court would disagree with you on that. Which neatly dovetails with how I and many others disagree on that.

Besides, it says that the individual has the right to keep arms. It doesn't say anything about where they have the right to keep them. If you are going to take the militia route, that could easy mean that they have the right to keep them in their state militia's armory unless they are on active duty, doing whatever the hell a state militia does nowadays.

Now you're getting into the definition of the militia and its duties and purposes. So far those duties and purposes seem to include keeping and bearing arms, surprise surprise. And "keeping and bearing arms" means having them readily available in one's home and one's person. The Supreme Court has access to all sorts of jurisprudence and case history at their disposal, and a staff of thousands to sort through files, cases, and background. They are also highly schooled in Constitutional law and aspects thereof. The result of all this history and knowledge is part of what led to the Heller verdict, which happens to fall in line nicely with what I have said all along, and that is that gun onwership is an individual right and includes the right (and ready availability) of self protection.

So whup the dead horse all you want, but the truth is now the only thing left to discuss is what sorts of "regulations" can be applied on top of the decision. We can speculate what sorts of regulations can be applied, but we have to remember that the individual right to keep and bear arms and to have them readily available for personal/home defense is a done deal.

Though, frankly, it seems you are using the term "militia" to mean "ficticious organization that exists solely to let gun enthusiasts have guns without being affected by any gun control laws".

Really? Find where I said that. If you actually read things that I posted, you'd note that I am not a member of any militia, and that I have also said a few more restrictions (primarily training requirements) are actually good ideas I'd like to see implemented. I've also said that th eprinciple of a gun registry is not too offensive to me, although I feel it is unrealistic to expect one. You'd know this if you'd been paying attention instead of trying to find words to put in my mouth or align me with imagined ideological perspectives.

I'm saying it depends on the weapons. A ban on pipe bombs is reasonable, but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is not. And remember, the "ban" on machineguns and explosives is not really a true "ban", they are available for people who want to jump through the hoops to get the liscencing. Most people don't feel the need or want to go through the trouble. These are reasonable restrictions and I never claimed otherwise.

Then you concede the point, that you are 100% wrong when you claim that a weapons ban, including individual firearms, is unconstitutional.

A ban on individual firearms is unconstitutional. You are claiming that I must choose some false bind, an either-or/absolute. You are trying to get me to say that, since a ban on SOME weaponry is Constitutional, then a ban on ALL weaponry could --conceivably-- be Constitutional.

This is a subject about what is reasonable or not. YOU claim that a ban on semi-automatic rifles is unreasonable, but that's the debate, isn't it? Other people may think that banning semi-automatic rifles is entirely reasonable or that you should have to jump through alot of damn hoops before you are trusted to have one.

I think allowing semi-automatic firearms is reasonable, since part of the basis for allowing people to keep and bear arms is for those arms to be useful in a militia context should the time be needed. Semi-automatic rifles are very useful for this purpose. You (and others) have mentioned that IEDs of various sorts could also be very handy in case of some sort of national emergency, but the risks associated with IED experimentation are probably deemed not worth the trouble that would be associated with allowing them to be used by the general public.

Now, you may say "but what about the risks of the militia firearms you argue on behalf of?" I'd have to say that the risks associated with those have been deemed to be within the "acceptable" threshold. Bear in mind that people who want to ban semi-automatic rifles have been unsuccessful in convincing people that these really are major causes of crime on our society. People seem to recognize that these rifles are used in very, very few crimes, and when they are used in crime it is a rare, newsworthy event.

Hence, this is a discussion about opinions, not the Constitution. That's what I'm establishing here.

Then why are you trying to argue that severe firearm restrictions could be Constitutional? That, too, is just your opinion and trust me, I think your opinion is as wrong as you think mine is.

When a gun enthusiast says he has a Constitutional right to his firearm, he is either deliberately lying or mistaken,

Apparantly not, according to the Supreme Court. Unless you'd like to write them a letter to explain how badly they've fucked up and totally misinterpreted the law and Constitiution. Be my guest.

...simply because any legal ban on that firearm just shifts his firearm out of the zone of what counts as bearing arms.

Here is your first glimmer of insight. It is like a tender seedling growing in the landfill. I want to nurture that little sprout and watch it grow, but I have to admit, I have my doubts.

You said "a legal ban on [any particular] firearm" -- that's just it. A legal ban. What about an illegal (ie, Unconstitutional) ban? That was what was struck down with Heller.

Now, if you want a legal ban, go read Miller and get that warm glow of happiness when you realize that the Supreme Court has already decided, long ago, on at least one example where a ban on a particular type of firearm was, in fact, legal. That would be sawed-off shotguns. Lo and behold, I agree with that, too, and do not own a sawed-off shotgun nor do I seek to obtain one.

You can also look at the 1934 Gun Control Act and see that-- whaddaya know, the Supreme Court also gave their nod of approval to the severe restriction on civilian-owned automatic rifles, and found that curtailing their ease of availability did not undermine the 2nd Amendment.

You can also look at the 1968 Gun Control Act and see that being able to buy a gun through the mail was restricted, and that, too, did not violate the 2nd Amendment and --shock!-- I also agree with and adhere to that, too.

None of these things are news; none of these things have I ever tried to hide from you or anyone else here, and yet you have constantly tried to show that my willingness to agree and abide by certain regulations means that my clinging to other types of firearms is a surprising, hidden act of hypocrisy (or lying, or dancing around, or whatever). I also don't yell "fire!" in crowded theaters, even though that curtails my 1st Amendment rights.

After all, the Constitution says nothing about what arms you are allowed to bear and as we've established, it's not "any you want".

No one is arguing that point, since no one but you strict-regulation types have been arguing on behalf things like pipe bombs and IEDs. The Supreme Court has apparantly decided that the types of weapons you are allowed to keep and bear are "militia weapons". Sawed-off shotguns, for example, are mentioned specifically as "not counted". The rest of the category is undefined.

I accept the current firearms laws as they are and find them reasonable. Most gun owners are comfortable with them, also, and only a handful are arguing for total, unrestricted access. Remember, I would actually like seeing a few more requirements, mostly related to training, WRT firearms in the general public.

Then why do you throw your lot in with the zealots? How come you say things like this and argue in every damn gun control debate like you are one of the zealots? This reminds me of conservative jackasses who start with the claim "I don't agree with everything Bush did but..." and then proceeds to frantically defend everything Bush did without backdown to the point that it is clear that they agree with everything out of sheer principle.

Explain to me how my stated willingness to require more proficiency training is "throwing my lot in with the zealots"? Explain to me how in every gun control debate I can remember I've said that I'd like to see more training, registration doesn't scare me, and I've even advocated that every firearms owner would, ideally, be liscenced and would periodically take a proficiency test to retain that liscence? I also mentioned that I'd like to see basic firearms safety taught in schools. So tell me, DaVinci, how is that "throwing my lot in with the zealots?"

Oh, wait-- it isn't. It's just because I'm not throwing my lot in with you, who'd want to see people forced to keep their guns locked up at remote sites that they'd have to ask permission to access. Sorry, but from my point of view, that is zealotry on your part, the strict gun-control zealotry that I find as distasteful as I'm sure you find my point of view.

You're like the Republicans: "if you'd only align yourself more closely to our point of view, then I wouldn't see you as such a radical and we could make a deal". In other words, "do it my way or I will continue to call you a radical". It works both ways-- I see your plan as radical and unconstitutional, and so far the Supreme Court seems to be more leaning towards the interpretation I've espoused.

Now, they may narrow the definition of "militia weapons" in the future, and they may define some of the "regulations" mentioned in the dissenting opinions of Heller, but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But the cornerstone of what I've said all along --that keeping and bearing firearms for immediate, individual or home defense-- has been upheld. Clarifying that further will be a job for coming litigation. Watch the Chicago case to see how this will fit in the framework of national law.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Fuck you. I happen to be trained in exactly this manner, and you can ask any of the other military personnel on the board. A "gun" is a crew-served weapon system. That is a technical description used to describe a specific type of equipment to differentiate it from another piece of equipment. "Jargon" like that --technical descriptions-- are used by people in certain profession for a reason-- to be specific. But then I guess you'd expect a mechanic to take you seriously and treat you as a learned peer and equal if you took your car into the shop and explained that the "doohickey" and the "thingy-ma-bob" were broken.

Essentially this is what I was trained, with the exception that Mk19 and M2HB are called crew-served weapons, the only time we used 'gun' at Fort Sill was when it pertains to the cannon on a main battle tank or a howitzer and in the case of a howitzer the proper term is 'Gun Tube'.

[Darth Wong]

I've been so busy lately I have trouble getting really involved in any board conversations (things should get better once summer comes), but I had to inject an aside here:

If I know how to pull the trigger on an arcade M-16 light gun, is that the same thing as knowing how to shoot a real M-16?

Speaking as a person who is not what you'd call a gun nut by any means, I have to say that the learning curve to shoot an M-16 is almost nonexistent. I did it once and there was virtually no learning curve. In fact, my first shot (let me reiterate: the first shot I'd ever fired in my entire life) was a near-perfect bullseye (unfortunately, each successive shot got worse and worse, as I began to tense up).

In other words, shooting an M-16 is actually not much different from sighting down the barrel of a toy gun and pulling the trigger. It's incredibly easy to do. It's the accurate aiming and maintenance which require a bit more learning.

[[R_H]]

Speaking as a person who is not what you'd call a gun nut by any means, I have to say that the learning curve to shoot an M-16 is almost nonexistent. I did it once and there was virtually no learning curve. In fact, my first shot (let me reiterate: the first shot I'd ever fired in my entire life) was a near-perfect bullseye (unfortunately, each successive shot got worse and worse, as I began to tense up).

In other words, shooting an M-16 is actually not much different from sighting down the barrel of a toy gun and pulling the trigger. It's incredibly easy to do. It's the accurate aiming and maintenance which require a bit more learning.

Don't forget good trigger pull. That's probably why you got worse, I have the exact same problem. It is absolutely key.

[Knife]

Don't forget good trigger pull. That's probably why you got worse, I have the exact same problem. It is absolutely key.

Trigger pull in only one factor. Pulling too hard makes your shot go far to the left, however, people tend to get excited and breath during the shot and that makes it go high or low depending on whether you're inhaling or exhaling. People get scared and push the weapon away from them, which makes the round go down.

By looking at the impacts on the target, you can pretty much tell exactly what is going on with the shooter.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Speaking as a person who is not what you'd call a gun nut by any means, I have to say that the learning curve to shoot an M-16 is almost nonexistent. I did it once and there was virtually no learning curve. In fact, my first shot (let me reiterate: the first shot I'd ever fired in my entire life) was a near-perfect bullseye (unfortunately, each successive shot got worse and worse, as I began to tense up).

In other words, shooting an M-16 is actually not much different from sighting down the barrel of a toy gun and pulling the trigger. It's incredibly easy to do. It's the accurate aiming and maintenance which require a bit more learning.

As you said you got your first shot off 'near-perfect' on a static target, the problem is when you qualify for the M16 and M4 they're not static and in the rush to get your shots off (with the exception of one all the 50m targets stay up for 5 seconds, the exception being Fast Freddy who only stays up for ~3) you have to maintain your zero, breathing control, and proper trigger squeeze. All the while you could have a helmet that doesn't fit you perfectly so it falls over your eyes then throw in that it's over 51º C in the sun and you're perspiring (you've got your boots, wool socks, trousers, a t-shirt, a blouse over that, your ACH, knee and elbow pads, your interceptor body armor another 16 pounds, and a load bearing vest with magazines and full canteens) and it evaporates only to condense on your eyepro or glasses. There were guys in my battery that it took four or more tries to qualify and I've met guys who got dropped back to a Training Battery in another stage of training simply because they couldn't get it I've even met one that was chaptered out of the Army for not being able to qualify at all. So you're exactly right, it's easy to shoot an M16, just throw in a mag, cock the charging handle, switch to semi or burst, take aim, pull trigger. It's a tad harder to be proficient with it.

[Darth Wong]

Speaking as a person who is not what you'd call a gun nut by any means, I have to say that the learning curve to shoot an M-16 is almost nonexistent. I did it once and there was virtually no learning curve. In fact, my first shot (let me reiterate: the first shot I'd ever fired in my entire life) was a near-perfect bullseye (unfortunately, each successive shot got worse and worse, as I began to tense up).

In other words, shooting an M-16 is actually not much different from sighting down the barrel of a toy gun and pulling the trigger. It's incredibly easy to do. It's the accurate aiming and maintenance which require a bit more learning.

As you said you got your first shot off 'near-perfect' on a static target, the problem is when you qualify for the M16 and M4 they're not static and in the rush to get your shots off (with the exception of one all the 50m targets stay up for 5 seconds, the exception being Fast Freddy who only stays up for ~3) you have to maintain your zero, breathing control, and proper trigger squeeze. All the while you could have a helmet that doesn't fit you perfectly so it falls over your eyes then throw in that it's over 51º C in the sun and you're perspiring (you've got your boots, wool socks, trousers, a t-shirt, a blouse over that, your ACH, knee and elbow pads, your interceptor body armor another 16 pounds, and a load bearing vest with magazines and full canteens) and it evaporates only to condense on your eyepro or glasses. There were guys in my battery that it took four or more tries to qualify and I've met guys who got dropped back to a Training Battery in another stage of training simply because they couldn't get it I've even met one that was chaptered out of the Army for not being able to qualify at all. So you're exactly right, it's easy to shoot an M16, just throw in a mag, cock the charging handle, switch to semi or burst, take aim, pull trigger. It's a tad harder to be proficient with it.

Dude, I never claimed to be a good marksman, never mind a soldier. I was just responding to someone who was saying that the specific act of shooting an M-16 would be totally different than shooting a toy gun, and I was pointing out that it is actually surprisingly similar.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Dude, I never claimed to be a good marksman, never mind a soldier. I was just responding to someone who was saying that the specific act of shooting an M-16 would be totally different than shooting a toy gun, and I was pointing out that it is actually surprisingly similar.

Woah, slow down, I was agreeing with you, I just wanted to add a bit more clarification on the difference between 'shooting' and 'proficient shooting' to help bolster your argument.

I didn't mean for you to think I disagreed with you or thought anything you said was wrong, I apologize if it came out that way.