Interesting Quirk of Permitless Carry

According to an email I received from a state legislator, the permitless concealed carry law doesn’t apply to…get this, people who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
Basically, if you have a CCW permit in Arizona, you must continue to have the permit on you while carrying, as the new law does not affect or supersede the existing one regarding permits. If you don’t have a permit, you can — once the law comes into effect — carry concealed without a permit.
Go figure.
As always, open carry remains unaffected.

15 thoughts on “Interesting Quirk of Permitless Carry”

  1. This was probably just an oversight. It is something that can easily be remedied in the next session. The removal of the requirement to carry a CCW permit from the CCW section of the law is all that would be required.

  2. I thought that it said we only have to carry permits with us if we are compelled by ‘any other law’ (i.e. the restaurant carry law.)

  3. 13-3112
    A. A. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a person who is qualified under this section. The person shall carry the permit at all times when the person is in actual possession of the concealed weapon and IS REQUIRED BY ANY OTHER LAW TO CARRY THE PERMIT. If the person is in actual possession of the concealed weapon and is required by any other law to carry the permit, the person shall present the permit for inspection to any law enforcement officer on request. (Emphasis mine).
    In other words, if you’re carrying somewhere that is limited to permit holders and you have a valid CWP, you must carry it with you to be able to present it to a LEO if you are requested to do so. Seems fair enough.

  4. Xrlq: That’s an excellent question. I have no idea. If you have a permit that Arizona recognizes, I’d play it safe and continue to have the permit.
    Mike: Here’s the email I got from one of the legislator’s assistants, quoting the Arizona Rifle & Pistol Association: “This new law will NOT supersede or eliminate the CCW program. If someone HAS a CCW permit, or acquires one in the future, they MUST carry the permit WHENEVER carrying concealed. As a permit holder, they cannot ignore this standing requirement, even though a person without a permit can do so. It’s lopsided, but that is the way it is.”
    Perhaps the AZRPA is incorrect, but I suspect they know a bit more about the law than I. 🙂

  5. I imagine the AZRPA is simply recommending that gun owners cover their own behinds by carrying the permit (not a bad idea) but I think they’ve got this wrong.
    Looking at this section again:
    “The department of public safety shall issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a person who is qualified under this section.”
    Independent clause. Easy to interpret.
    “The person shall carry the permit at all times when the person is in actual possession of the concealed weapon and is required by any other law to carry the permit.”
    Dependent clauses. The first says that one is required to “carry the permit at all times” when [one] is actually in possession of the firearm AND “is required by any other law to carry the permit.”
    I’m no English or Law major, but when the first clause here makes a requirement of something and is joined by another clause with the word ‘AND’, the second clause modifies the requirements of the first.
    In other words:
    A permit will be made available to qualified people. You have to carry it with you if any other law requires it. But if no other law requires it, then you don’t have to.

  6. Does anyone have a link to the full bill? Or at least the bill number? I suspect AZMike may be correct but it would be nice to see the whole thing in context.

  7. Thanks. After reading the bill in its entirety I have to conclude that AZMike was indeed correct, the requirement to carry a permit applies only where one is required by another law to have a permit. Moreover, failure to comply even with that requirement is punishable only as a slap on the wrist, assuming you really do have the permit and just didn’t have it along with you at the time. The new ARS 13-3112(C) will read:

    A permittee who carries a concealed weapon, who is required by any other law to carry a permit and who fails to present the permit for inspection on the request of a law enforcement officer commits a violation of this subsection and is subject to a civil penalty of not more than three hundred dollars. The department of public safety shall be notified of all violations of this subsection and shall immediately suspend the permit. A permittee shall not be convicted of a violation of this section if the permittee produces to the court a legible permit that is issued to the permittee and that was valid at the time the permittee failed to present the permit for inspection.
    [Emphasis added.]

    Given the criminal overtones of the word “convict,” I’m guessing that the civil penalty of $300 will stand, but no criminal penalties (at least, not as a result of 3112 itself) will.
    That said, given that there will still be some locations where a permit is in fact required, I see absolutely no downside in keeping your permit with you, regardless. Much easier to just have that be one more thing you stick in your wallet, and forget it’s there until/unless you ever find yourself in a position where you really need it to be there.
    Last and least, this little exercise has alerted me to another interesting quirk of both the old and the new law of which I was unaware, namely that the “no guns” signs prescribed by ARS 4-229 are only enforceable against non-residents who actually knew they were there. If they were prominently displayed, but we were just oblivious, we have an affirmative defense under Subsection C(2(b).

  8. FWIW I am a lawyer, but my advice in this forum is worth every penny you paid for it. The only way I could see this quirk existing is if there is a separate statute, not affected by this one, that requires permitees to carry their permits with their guns at all times. Seems unlikely, but I’m not going to travel all the way to AZ just to be the test case, either.

  9. Xrlq: It’s nice to have a lawyer reading my foolish scribblings. 🙂
    In the event that you do travel to AZ, I’ll buy you a beer or a drink of your choosing.

  10. xrlq,
    SB1108 originally would have allowed anyone, CWP holder or not, to enter an establishment where alcohol was served on premises and carry without restriction — however, that was stripped out about mid-way through the amendment process.
    The ‘any other law’ language was inserted specifically to alleviate concerns over CWP holders leaving their permits at home when dining out at restaurants with liquor licenses (see A.R.S. 4-229).

  11. According to SB1108, no ID at all is required to carry any more. The requirement to carry a Driver’s License or Passport was part of the carry permit section, which was stricken.

Comments are closed.