An interaction I had on facebook with someone regarding AZ's new CCW laws

[MinistrMalic]

Hi everyone!

I had an interaction with a friend on Facebook today about AZ's new constitutional carry bill. I said that I was pleasantly surprised by the AZ legislature yesterday, and he replied, "So "adults to carry concealed guns without permits", not sure how that is good. If fact seems crazy to me."

This was my reply:

Well [friend's name], there are several reasons I think it is good personally. First we aren't blazing a trail here; Alaska has had this since their inception. Now it might be said that Alaska really is the wild frontier, but Vermont also has no permit requirements and never has. They haven't had any problems, so why would we expect them?

Second, it hasn't been illegal to carry a firearm in AZ in any way; Open Carry has always been legal. So it doesn't change who is legally allowed to carry a firearm, it simply allows those who are legally allowed to carry to carry in a purse or under a coat.

Third, and especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states and municipalities (which DC vs. Heller started and which McDonald vs. Chicago will certainly reiterate and clarify...), it seems that the 2nd Amendment is finally being seen as on par with the remainder of the Bill of Rights. American citizens have a fundamental right to free speech and don't need a permit to use that right; they have a similar right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and against self-incrimination. So the right to keep and bear arms is now being given equal status, and that right should not be infringed without due process. (14th Amendment there)

I think what will happen is exactly what happened in AZ when the laws changed on September 30th to allow CCW holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol: nothing. There was a lot of concern in some circles that it would lead to mass shootings. There was angst over drunk rednecks having "shootout at the OK Corral" type incidents. In reality it hasn't happened. There has been no discernible increase in crime from that legislation; criminals carry concealed whether the law allows it or not, and you don't get to see the firearm until it's too late. This legislation simply allows the lawful citizen to protect themselves with a useful tool and without tipping any potential bad guys off ahead of time. It levels the playing field somewhat, making criminals think twice because now any lawful citizen might be able to defend themselves against attack, and with deadly force within the confines of legal statute.

Frankly I am very glad that when my wife heads out at night now I can ask her to take some protection, and she can without feeling like a Texas Ranger with a gun on her hip in plain sight.

So for all those reasons, I think this is a good piece of legislation. I hope this doesn't come off as attacking, as that wasn't my intent at all. I respect you and know that you are left of me politically, which is fine by me. You said you weren't sure how that was good, so I thought I would share my reasons. Be well.


Just thought you might be interested in why I think this is good legislation.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[JPCleary]

Great answer. It was well thought out and articulate. Make sure to post your friend's response.

[gasmitty]

Well done, MM. Let's hope your friend has an open mind.

To me, it seemed there was far more agitated debate last year about restaurant CCW than there was this year about "constitutional carry." Maybe the current political and economic climates have people focused on those issues and not RKBA.

AND let's hope Jan Brewer signs the bill into law!

[azchevy]

The mentality in this country is: I shouldn't do anything unless the government tells me to.

Nanny state.

[CCBob]

Great. Wholeheartedly AGREE.

[ep1953]

Well stated! Please let us know any reply your friend my have.

[zacii]

Your reply was well put. That's what we need, to be able to articulate the truth and bring up points of fact, rather than points of emotion like the whole "blood will run in the streets", "guns will escalate crime" and we'll become like the wild west, again.

[OldVet]

Nice job, much better than my "Mind your own business" responses.

[youngda9]

Any response...or just stuttering from their end :)

[Hiram25]

Well said!

[MinistrMalic]

Continuing the conversation...his response and mine (plus a zinger from a pro-RKBA friend in there for good measure):

Him:

I understand you are not attacking. This is obviously too big an issue to cover in this post. But I think it is important to research the history of the 2nd amendment. Which was put in place when the United States did not have a full time standing Army. In fact the founders were strongly against ever having a full time standing military. The intent was to Arm the US Militia for defense against external threats. As you will see it emphasizes the need for a militia and now with a full time military I doubt the Amendment would have been written in this manner.

With that said I am all for individuals having the right to own firearms. However, personally just do not see why it should make me happy that others can carry a concealed weapon without permit. What good can come of that situation. Where I grew up there was a real threat of individuals carrying guns, in fact 2 of my friends were shot at a party I attended in High School, and no one ever felt safe. So seeing others be happy about giving people more reason to make me feel less safe just rubs me the wrong way.

Me:

Amen on this being a big issue. I think that if you look historically the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with a lack of a standing army and everything to do with the American Revolution. It was a reaction to the British attempting to disarm the populace, which then organized into a militia to throw the British off. So in reality, and as much as I hesitate to say it and would be loathe to ever go there, in reality the intent was for private citizens to be able to form into a militia to remove a tyrannical government by force. I think that the founders had as a background that every person would always be able to defend themselves against aggressive criminals, and that the intent was to prevent disarmament by government.

In high school none of your friends were legally able to carry a firearm on their person; even under AZ law Open Carry is legal for those 18 and over only, and under the new law CC would be 21 and older. So as a standard, the state expects that the citizens who carry are adults, in fact the oldest age of majority established in our society.

I'm certainly not trying to rub you the wrong way Scott, so please forgive me for giving offense. I think that there is a significant difference between *feeling* safe and *being* safe. We can feel safe and in fact be in significant danger; likewise we can be quite safe and yet feel in significant danger, such as many experience while flying in a commercial airliner. Likewise, I think that the feeling of safety with respect to firearms doesn't necessarily correlate to actually being safe.

I know many people who feel or felt unsafe around firearms because of their past or their upbringing. Laura certainly felt that way, and it was a long time before that changed. Now, though, because of use, training, exposure and understanding she feels much safer around firearms. So I respect your feeling of being less safe, but in reality the people who might be carrying concealed after this law went into effect are not the unsafe ones. The unsafe ones (i.e. criminals) were carrying concealed already, regardless of the law. So realistically there hasn't been any new danger to anyone in AZ.

My gun nut friend:

It's very clear, based on historical record, that the Second Amendment involved a heck of alot more than just fulfilling a national security role vis a vis "standing army" against some type of foreign aggression. Alexander Hamilton wrote in detail in the Federalist Papers about what specifically constituted the "Militia", and it's role. Like all other inalienable rights, it is an individual right, critical in ensuring The People (not just the militia) can protect themselves against potential abuses by their own government. The 2nd Amendment is what protects and enforces all of the other inalienable rights. It is the last line in the sand against tyranny.

I'm sorry to hear about your friends being shot. But the solution is not to restrain the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves e.g. tighter gun restrictions, registration, etc.,. as we all know that, by definition, criminals don't follow laws anyway. If folks don't want to arm themselves, that is totally fine, I have no problem with it. What I do have a serious problem with is others (lawmakers/politicians) thinking they have a say in when and how I may protect the life and liberty of my family and myself- whether from thugs, or from those who hold positions of power.

Me:

Uh oh, here comes my gun nut friend! :) Play nice. That's your brother in Christ you're ranting at. And this is a worldview and priorities issue. Clearly the 1st Amendment protects free speech, and while that is an inalienable right there are reasonable limitations placed on that right. I cannot use that right to scream "fire" in a movie theater, or to slander another person.

Likewise the 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right, though the application of it is subject to reasonable limitations just as any other right. I think that the historical record of states with less strict laws in this regard, especially in a modern context, speaks to the truth that normal people are trustworthy and therefore the less restrictions the better. I see that honest, thoughtful people disagree with what constitutes a reasonable limitation.

I suppose my first thought is, that in Vermont this has been law since the Constitution was ratified. I would certainly consider Vermont a safe state and would have no problems visiting it; it certainly isn't in the news inordinately for being a hotbed of gun violence or anything of that nature. Yet this is precisely the law of the land there, even with all the states in New England around it being among the toughest in the nation with respect to guns.

So I can't find a good, logical reason why this is a bad law. I might at first feel that it might be unsafe, but the facts just can't bear out that feeling for me. So in the end it seems logical to allow. YMMV.

[zacii]

even under AZ law Open Carry is legal for those 18 and over only, and under the new law CC would be 21 and older

According to my NRA-ILA alerts, this new law would allow for 18 yr olds to carry concealed, as well as openly. I may be misreading, though.

Good job educating your facebook friend. At least he's talking to you; that's a start.

[ep1953]

Thanks for filling us in on the full conversation.

Well done by both you and your "gun nut" friend!

[retsupt99]

I agree with your thinking!

[chiefjason]

So the framers did not mean for the 2A to apply to the people huh? Interesting, I must be missing something.

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent teh people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."

- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason


HISTORICAL QUOTES ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Nope, never mind I was right. Hit him with a few of these. I would love to see the explanation given for them.