Perspective

I’ve been following the comments on several local news websites regarding the passage of permitless carry in Arizona.
A common theme among opponents, other than the normal “blood in the streets” comments, is that they discuss various bad guys (either criminals, drunks, “rednecks”, and so on) now being able to arm themselves and committing various crimes of opportunity (road rage is commonly mentioned) against the innocent citizenry.
While no credence is given to the fact that such actions are already illegal, such a reaction (or lack thereof) is common.
I did, however, note that none of the people opposing the measure ever considered taking measures — whether carrying a firearm or not — to protect themselves. The law is designed to ease the ability of law-abiding people defend themselves, yet the thought of availing themselves of the new law didn’t occur to them.
I suppose it’s all a matter of perspective; if one believes that guns belong only in the hands of criminals and police, the thought of owning or carrying a gun for their own protection never occurs, yet if one believes that guns belongs in the hands of the law-abiding, good people that make up the majority of the population, such a thought is not difficult to envision at all.

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.

AZ Constitutional Carry Passes

From the AzCDL:

YOU did it!? Today, April 16, 2010, Governor Brewer signed SB 1108, the AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, into law.? Arizona now becomes the third state to not require written permission from the government for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms discretely.? Because Arizona is the first state in the U.S. with a large urban population to take this significant step, this is a watershed moment for the entire country.
[…]
If you don’t have a permit, don’t start carrying concealed just yet.? The law won’t become effective until 90 days after “Sine Die” when the Legislature officially adjourns.? Since they are still working through a slew of bills, we don’t expect Sine Die anytime soon.? In past years, the effective date of bills has been around September.
CCW permits still have a purpose.? You’ll need one to streamline gun purchases, to carry in states that honor Arizona permits and for carrying concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.? And, the training you receive to obtain a permit is an added bonus.? Along with restoring your right to bear arms, SB 1108 added additional training opportunities for obtaining a permit.? NRA classes and training from places like Front Sight and Gunsite will be able to qualify as permit training.
If you decide not to obtain a CCW permit, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t train.? The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the responsibility that comes with it.? Take that money that you save on permit and renewal fees and spend it on quality training as often as you can.? Lead by example ? the world is watching.

Outstanding news.

Woot!

The Arizona House of Representatives just voted to approve SB 1108, the “Constitutional Carry” measure that was up for voting.
Now, it goes to the governor. If she signs it (or it passes without her signature), Arizonans will be able to carry firearms concealed without a permit (e.g. Alaska/Vermont-style carry). I’m pretty sure the governor will sign the measure.
Big day indeed.

One Step Closer to Permitless Concealed Carry in AZ

From AZCDL:

SB 1108, the Senate version of the AzCDL-requested Constitutional Carry bill, passed in the Senate Third Read, by a 20-10 vote, on Monday, March 29, 2010.
From here, SB 1108 will be sent over to the House.? Since the House has already voted for an identical bill, HB 2347, during their Committee of the Whole (COW) debate, we are expecting SB 1108 to be substituted for HB 2347 during the House Third Read.? We are also expecting the House Third Read vote to be as early as Tuesday, March 30, 2010.? This will be “the” final vote on Constitutional Carry to determine if it will be sent to the Governor!

Things are moving quick on this.
Of course, I think it’s rather silly that so much legislative time (even as fast as things are going) is spent to make it legal for people to untuck their shirts while carrying (permitless open carry is already legal here) while people could carry without a permit so long as their shirt is tucked in. Permitless concealed carry should be a no-brainer.

On Prohibitions

As many readers may know, Costco prohibits the carriage of firearms within its stores. As a private entity, they are perfectly within their rights to do so, and while I may disagree with their decision, I respect it.
Naturally, there are those who do not agree with their decision and will carry anyway. This is prohibited by Costco’s policy, and Costco can ask them to leave (and failing to do so is trespassing). Even so, I’m sure there’s not a few people who think “concealed means concealed” and don’t worry about it. I may disagree, but I understand.
Then, there’s the guy who walked in to the local Costco tonight: baseball hat on backwards, tag still attached to it, oversized t-shirt, with a Ruger semi-auto pistol (exact model unknown) openly carried in a cheap, nylon holster with no retention other than a small velcro strap. Oh, and he’s there with his wife and four kids. He totally took “classy” to a whole new level.
It’s one thing to carry discretely where it’s not permitted, but it’s another thing entirely to do so brazenly and openly.
Don’t be “that guy”.

ASUA Public Forum After Action Report

Here’s a video of the proceedings from the ASUA meeting tonight.
Sorry for the poor quality video and audio — I recorded it with my cellphone video camera, which is clearly not the best recording tool. Such is life.
I’ll go through the videos and add annotations/captions in the future.

At several points, I wanted to say to the pro-gun people, “Stop it. You’re not helping.” — we’re not talking about the Second Amendment, nor guns in parking lots, nor anything else. We’re talking about whether the ASUA, the University of Arizona student government, should support or oppose a state senate bill that would allow faculty with valid CCW permits to carry concealed firearms on campus. Your efforts basically confirm every negative stereotype, though most of the pro-gun females who spoke were clear, articulate, and made some good points. This is a matter of giving responsible adults — professors, specifically — the choice to carry a firearm on campus if they wish.
The ASUA is holding a voting meeting tomorrow in the Ventana Room at the Student Union at 5:00pm. They’ll allow a brief period of public discussion on the topics (the gun issue is the first thing on the schedule, so show up promptly), but then the ASUA Senate will have their own discussions and vote on the matter. I highly encourage decent public speakers (i.e. not like those who spoke tonight) to attend and speak tomorrow. If we get good public speakers, particularly those who don’t fit into classic stereotypes of gun owners (e.g. women, disabled, professors, etc.), that could go a long way toward getting the ASUA to support this measure.

Campus Self-Defense Club

The University of Arizona’s daily newspaper, The Daily Wildcat, printed an article today regarding a new self-defense club available on campus, primarily for women.
They discuss how this club teaches situational awareness, which I support wholeheartedly, and self-defense “techniques”, which I support somewhat less so. I note a distinct lack of firearms training, possibly due to the fact that it’s against state law and university policy to for CCW holders to possess firearms on campus.
If self-defense gets to the hand-to-hand stage, things have gone Very, Very Wrong. Better to avoid it where possible (hence situational awareness) or, if unavoidable, deal with it decisively.
A 110lb female college student, even with some self-defense training, is likely to be at a considerable physical disadvantage compared to a 180lb male attacker (a majority of attackers are male). A firearm — and the training and will to use it if needed — corrects for that disparity.
But no, they instead put up more “blue light phones” around campus and hand out free cans of pepper spray to female students (with no training on the proper use of it), as well as teaching self-defense “techniques” that are unlikely to work when confronted with a real attacker.
While I’m hardly an expert when it comes to self-defense firearm use, I’d be happy to take any UA student, male or female, at my expense, to the range to learn the basics of shooting. From there, I’ll happily point people toward instructors and programs that teach armed self-defense far better than I could.

On Getting Mugged

Caleb got mugged.
Threatening a competitive shooter with a knife is almost certainly a bad idea.
Fortunately, it ended with no shots being fired, Caleb being unstabbinated, and the bad guy suffering from HotCoffeeToTheFace Syndrome.
It also goes to show you that a Beretta Jetfire in .25 ACP is a “gun that you carry when you can’t carry a gun” — Caleb wears business casual to work, so concealing a full-size pistol is a bit difficult. Nevertheless, his Jetfire saved the day.

News About Guns-In-Restaraunts

The Arizona Republic has a remarkably well-balanced, informative article about the subject.
Of course, they use the word “toting” in reference to the lawful carriage of arms, which always bugs me, but isn’t a huge deal.
Naturally, there’s an enormous amount of PSH in the comments, which is to be expected. Accusations abound about how strawmen gun-owners will get “extremely drunk” and shoot people, and at least one commenter has mentioned that he will avoid patronizing bars that don’t have “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” signs, as if that will somehow magically protect him. Several other commenters have mentioned how they will cease patronizing bars altogether.
Somehow, I suspect that business will carry on as usual.
I encourage readers to contact local establishments that post “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED” signs and politely voice their opposition to the prohibition. If enough patrons bring it up, it may cause them to reconsider.