Some SB1108 questions...

[azcdlfred]

Now, for those who are 18, 19 or 20 years old, it looks like the old Illinois fanny pack argument gets to come to Arizona. You see in Illinois, people concealed carry legally by unloading the gun and putting it in a special fanny pack that was designed for firearms. It doesn't scream gun, but it was designed to carry a gun.

You'll probably run afoul of the 1994 Moerman decision which specifically involved fanny packs. Even though it was dealing with the old open carry statute, I could see it being applied to the new statute.

The court case is here: http://www.azcdl.org/AZAppellateCourt_StateVMoerman.pdf . You'll find the fanny pack language on page 2 under "Facts and Procedural History."

If you are under 21, you are a cop magnet to start with. Carrying a gun concealed and getting cute will buy you a whole lot of trouble that will require lots of money to fix.

Fred

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Carrying a gun concealed and getting cute will buy you a whole lot of trouble [/B]that will require lots of money to fix.

Fred

Words to 'carry by'. No need to get cute or creative. Just carry the damn gun for self defense holstered, in a reasonable manner 'openly' if you're under 21. It doesn't get much more complicated than that.

 

[wrightme]

Oh, wait, Nevada doesn't recognize Arizona's permit. And several cities don't allow any firearms, and there's no state preemption.

IIRC, Nevada has total preemption, except for a few local ordinances from before the preemption law that were grandfathered in.

Yes, NV has almost total preemption, with the aforementioned grandfathers. But I know of no city in NV that bans firearms. Perhaps you can cite relevant statute that supports that statement?
preemption SB-92 from 2007 session

Preemption Statute NRS-244.364

1. Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and no county may infringe upon those rights and powers. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

Hopefully, the exceptions can be excised in future sessions.

Now, back to the AZ discussion.....

 

[wrightme]

That will get you jacked up with a face plant in sections of Clark County... But, that sort'a thing keeps me 'n mine outta 'Vegas, so it's all good in the end. Legalized thuggery was never one of my things to experience.

It appears to be getting less that way; in no small part due to the work of TimF and others in Vegas.

 

[wrightme]

"(a) A manner where any portion of the firearm or holster in which the firearm is carried is visible.

(b) A holster that is wholly or partially visible.

(c) A scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons that is wholly or partially visible."

It says at least part of the firearm, or the holster carrying it, has to be visible. IWB should be OK as long as you tuck the outermost layer of clothing in behind it.

Now, for those who are 18, 19 or 20 years old, it looks like the old Illinois fanny pack argument gets to come to Arizona. You see in Illinois, people concealed carry legally by unloading the gun and putting it in a special fanny pack that was designed for firearms. It doesn't scream gun, but it was designed to carry a gun.

There are all sorts of cases out there designed for carrying guns, some look like day planners, others are just backpacks with space for a holster.

And then there's the old argument over what is and isn't considered luggage.

As broad as that language is, it looks like the 18-20 crowd gets to concealed carry too.

I was just looking at my Crossbreed Supertuck and if I tuck my shirt between my 1911 and my pants, the clippy part that goes around the belt is still visible. With a tiny gun, it wouldn't be very visible at all and the holster would still be showing.

I personally would discourage that course of action. Unless it is very identifiable as a holster, IMHO that will be deemed as "concealed."

 

[Mudjack]

You have got me there...

That will get you jacked up with a face plant in sections of Clark County... But, that sort'a thing keeps me 'n mine outta 'Vegas, so it's all good in the end. Legalized thuggery was never one of my things to experience.

Las Vegas Metro are some of the premier thugs in the country. I work closely with cops in my line of work and I have seen cops do more illegal **** and brutality than anywhere else I have worked. And most of the time they are just outright brazen about it. They could care less who's watching.

Metro would just as likely put a bullet in a guy as talk to him.

 

[azcdlfred]

So if Im reading the correctly, this now means that any holster where the firearms is partially visible, such as IWB, is now considered OC in Az?

Only if you are between 18-21. For adults (21 and over) the disctinction between open carry and discreet carry is non-existent.

For 18-21, the "wholly or partially visible" language in ARS 13-3102.B.3 applies. This new language is broader than the former ARS 13-3102.G language about belt holsters and vehicle carry. However, after 16 years under Adams or Moerman decisions, I predict an arrest based on the "obvious under ordinary observation" interpreation of the 1994 court decisions. If you are 18-21, I don't recommend "partially visible," unless you can afford the court costs to fight it.

Fred

 

[mFonz77]

Perhaps this is something the AZCDL can put on the "wish list" Fred?

Rationale: It seems to me that, if one is old enough to sign up to give one's life for one's country, and carry an M16, one should be able to tote something much smaller and weaker around any way they please in AZ. Just my .02

(Yes I also think the drinking age should be 18 across the board )

 

[azcdlfred]

Perhaps this is something the AZCDL can put on the "wish list" Fred?

It is on our list of miracles to perform

First, legislators need to see that the end result of Constitutonal Carry for adults was little more than the sound of crickets. When the next legislative session starts, the law will have only been in effect 5 months, AND, we will be dealing with the aftermath of the November elections.

Fred

 

[me812]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think it's probably a good idea for under-21s to have to open carry. The maturity level of many teenage boys is concerning to say the least. It's probably a good idea for those around them to be provided with reasonable notice that they're armed.

That having been said, I think that the age to OC should probably be lowered from 18 to 16. If you're mature enough to be in control of a two-ton automobile at 16, then why not a gun?

 

[azcdlfred]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think it's probably a good idea for under-21s to have to open carry. The maturity level of many teenage boys is concerning to say the least.

Society in general now considers a person to be a "child" almost until they are 30. That makes pushing for the exercise of their rights all the harder.

 

[Snakemathis]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I think it's probably a good idea for under-21s to have to open carry. The maturity level of many teenage boys is concerning to say the least. It's probably a good idea for those around them to be provided with reasonable notice that they're armed.

That having been said, I think that the age to OC should probably be lowered from 18 to 16. If you're mature enough to be in control of a two-ton automobile at 16, then why not a gun?

I respectfully disagree. I mean, by this statement the suggestion is too punish all for the mistakes of few. I am 18 and have many many friends who are 18. Granted, teenagers get into trouble more often, the majority of 18 year olds I know are responsible adults just as you or anyone else. I could equate this to saying I believe only people under 21 should be able to carry concealed because at 21 you can purchase alcohol. Most people would never drink and carry but it could, has, and will happen. The actions of few should not be reasonable cause to punish the majority. As a matter of fact, myself being 18 am grouped with people up to 24 years of age with the Bureau of Justice. 18 - 24 year olds have the highest homicide rates in the country. ((http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/teens.cfm)) So if I at 18 am to be grouped with people at 24 who can be considered just as "dangerous and unruly" as myself, why should they be allowed to conceal but I cant? Just my $.02

 

[rondummy]

I think it's probably a good idea for under-21s to have to open carry. The maturity level of many teenage boys is concerning to say the least. It's probably a good idea for those around them to be provided with reasonable notice that they're armed.

The gun control advocates use this logic as well; punish and restrict many because of the few.