Go here for informaiton in AZ:
This is a discussion on Arizona 13-3102 exemption? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I remember my CCW instructor saying something about "No Weapons" signs that include "ARS 13-3102" exempt legal CCW holders from the prohibition. I can't find ...
I remember my CCW instructor saying something about "No Weapons" signs that include "ARS 13-3102" exempt legal CCW holders from the prohibition. I can't find it in my notes from the class. Do I have that right? I'm specifically asking b/c the local libraries have a "No Deadly Weapons" sign with "ARS 13-3102 (A-10)" on the line below. Another sign in the lobby says something to the effect of 'No unauthorized carry of weapons'.
Thanks for any help.
First - I don't see anything about a difference in the applicability of "No Weapons" signs depending on whether they display "13-3102" or not. Did anyone else taking the AZ CCW class hear about this?
Also, here are the relevant sections of 13-3102:
13-3102 - Misconduct involving weapons
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01
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.
So, the question is, does a CCW permit make a person "specifically licensed, authorized or permitted"? BTW, paragraphs 10, 11 & 12 (also exempted by C-4) deal with election polling places, schools & nuclear plants respectively. ALSO, section C, paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 already exempt Peace Officers, Members of the military in performance of duties & Wardens/Correctional officers. So, who is left for paragraph 4 to apply to, if not CCW holders?
I guess this was my point -- there is no distinction on the State's website.
My instructor never mentioned what you recall about the sign either.
I think the website is pretty clear on where not to cary, and according to them a sign is a sign and a request is a request -- either one should be honored... I wouldn't go against it.
I have called them in the past with questions and thery were very helpful. If this still 'bugs' you, give them a call.
I never received any info in my class on this.
The basics of it is this... So far the "exemption" has not been tested in a high-level court yet. The exemption has, in fact, been used in some lower courts and the courts support the argument, but it's foundation is still kind of shaky. As far as the sign showing 13-3201.A10, that only points to the part of the statute that says that they're supposed to provide secure storage only after requesting you place it in their custody. If they didn't do that, the sign's really only showing the library that they're supposed to and the sign doesn't do squat (e.g. you have to be asked to give it to them, otherwise it doesn't matter). They can, though, request that you leave which is under the trespass statute and is completely different.
I never was told anything about signs or even ones with statutes written on them in my class. But when it comes to using the exemption, be careful as it hasn't been really "tested" yet in higher-level courts. However, as far as it's written I can't see any legal basis for CCW'rs to not fall under it. The Gun-Free School Zones Act is written in the same terminology and that's the exact part that exempts CCW'rs from being within 1000 ft of a school. As far as I see it (though I don't want to be the test case), if the same terminology works federally and it works for CCWs, I can't see why it wouldn't apply to us.
BTW, I've tried to get my county attorney to give their official opinion regarding the interpretation of this exemption and while it looked promising at first, I never got a reply even after reminding them that I was waiting on it.
18 USC § 922 Unlawful acts.
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(2)(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm --
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before and individual obtain such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler
I've basically heard everything you said - the law as stated seems to exempt CCW's, but it has never been tested (and no one wants to try it out!). It would be nice if it could be clarified.