OK, this is going to be somewhat long, but I'm going to try to keep this brief. I was reading the CCW class law and legal PDF file that our DPS gives out that was written for CCW lawyer Michael Anthony (one of the expert witnesses for the Fish vs. Arizona case). In it he brought up the question of whether the exemptions held in ARS 13-3102 of where carrying a weapon is allowed applied to CCW holders.
The law Mr. Anthony brings up is ARS 13-3102.C.4: " C. Subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this section shall not apply to:... 4. A person specifically licensed, authorized or permitted pursuant to a statute of this state or of the United States." This exempts the statues referring to CCW without a permit, CCW without a permit in immediate control or in a vehicle, possessing a knowingly defaced weapon, the trespass law reference weapon carry, entering a polling place on election day, carrying on school grounds, and entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying, respectively.
Mr. Anthony argues that since ARS 13-3102.C.4 was enacted prior to the CCW statute (ARS 13-3112) that it could not have contemplated CCW permits. He does admit that lower courts have accepted the argument but appellete courts have not had it brought before them. He also states that the legislature has not passed legislation to clarify the statute. This is where I find something wrong with his argument and hopefully a lawyer on the board can correct me here...
If said statute (ARS 13-3102) was enacted prior to the statute about CCW permits (ARS 13-3112), then why is it that the original statute (ARS 13-3102) specifically mentions the other? The first two sections of ARS 13-3102:
" A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 except a pocket knife concealed on his person; or
2. Carrying a deadly weapon without a permit pursuant to section 13-3112 concealed within immediate control of any person in or on a means of transportation"
Our CCW permits state: "I hereby certify that the person described hereon has been granted the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon in compliance with Arizona Revised Statute 13-3112." Given authorizing a person pursuant to a state statute authorizing the person to carry a firearm and concealed on his person, which, given the statute should validate a CCW permit as an exemption.
Combine that with the other legal block on school carry, the Gun-Free School Zones Act (18 USC 922(q)) which states as an exemption that an individual possessing a firearm "is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State." This is providing that the person is required to have law enforcement authorities verify that the person is qualified under law to receive the license... Arizona requires this specifically.
Now, I'm not going to try to test these theories, but is it just me or does it seem to provide for these exemptions, provided that the firearm remain concealed (in some cases)?