Montana has some restrictions, some I don't agree with but, we are ok with it. All and all it works, for most. Really the only beef I have is not allowing CC in an establishment that serve's alcohol here. While wife and I don't go bar hopping, we do like to go out to dinner at places that serve, for the great food. Since I have a C.D.L. and a CWP. I'm not going to chance either one, so I am forced by law to lock the gun in the vehicle. Not good with that because a BG could just come on in and have the run of the place, and my gun is out of reach.
So because of that uncomfortable, inconvienence that this law places on us we spend our money at places that are within the realm of OUR comfort, like Starbucks if you will.......
Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 13 Criminal Code - Chapter 4 Justification
13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property
A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:
1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
WV and KY are pretty nice. OH stinks, but at least we can carry.
I'm very happy with Utah's gun laws, but there are a few things I'd like to see different.
-carry multiple guns, knives, or other weapons
-carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, bars and drink while carrying. Just don't be .08
-carry past ANY signage, it doesn't mean anything here
-carry in schools of any sort (except BYU)
-carry a loaded handgun in vehicles without a permit
-not a must inform state (though I recommend it)
-no duty to retreat
-OC without a permit (Utah unloaded OC, no round in chamber, must be 2 actions to fire) Loaded OC with a permit
-shall issue to res. and non-res.
-accept ALL other states permits
-no waiting periods
-scored (the first and only) 0 on Brady's score card
Things I'd like to see changed:
-No civil lawsuits on justified shootings
-protection of property
-Loaded OC without a permit
-Lifetime permit, or no permit to CC
I am pretty happy with PA. There are some things that I would like to see change, but it sure could be a lot worse. I like that WV honors a PA LTCF too!
Yep I know what you mean. When you see other states that allow things that you can't do but then I think about the states that don't have the freedom that I have. It's good and bad I guess evrywhere.
You know, the more I look around at other states' laws, the happier I am to live in Washington state. We're not perfect (not by a long shot!), but I'm continually surprised by some of the silly laws about concealed carry elsewhere.
Of course, we managed to dodge most of the silliness simply because concealed carry has been legal here for at least four decades (maybe more). That means our carry law went into effect before the whole nanny-state mindset really took hold. Thank goodness.
Don't badmouth us. We only have four areas off limits and our permit is valid in the most states, next to Michigan.
Originally Posted by Katana
I tell you this, it doesn't get that much better than having guns in the patron state of shooting stuff.
RKBA is written in the State Constitutional Bill of Rights
OC is legal statewide except in Topeka, Wichita and KS Metro area BUT if you have a Conceal Handgun License then OC is legal in Topeka, Wichita, Mission and Overland Park.
State firearm laws pre-empt any local law.
..... 'Shall issue' Concealed Handgun License,
..... 8-hour classroom and live-fire qualification required,
..... Personal info of Licensees is not public record
..... Do recognize non-resident permits from reciprocity states
..... Other than Federal buildings, K-12 schools and Universities, ALL other buildings must be posted
Conceal Carry is legal if NOT posted.
..... Reciprocity with only 23 states – primarily because training and
qualification in other states is not same as or more stringent.
California, Oregon and Iowa do not honor any other states’ concealed carry licenses.
..... 6-month residency requirement,
..... 45-day minimum wait,
..... Turn-around time averaging 60-days,
..... Four-year license costs $150,
..... No load gun in vehicle UNLESS you have a CHL
Not required to inform LEO during stop.
One and only one State approved 'Gun Buster' sign. Failure to observe approved sign and refusing to leave when asked = trespassing charge. Unapproved sign can be ignored.
'Castle Doctrine' laws allow Deadly Force for home and property including RV, auto and boat [no pirates allowed].
No asinine State FOID, permit, RI-060, CoBIS, registration, in-person interview or mental health evaluation required to purchase, own, transport a gun or ammunition - a.k.a. Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, New York, Iowa
No AWB, 'approved' handgun list, mag capacity or type of ammunition restrictions
Score 7 out of 100 by Brady Campaign
Constitutional Amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
No helmet law, but do have to have a motorcycle DL.
No mandatory seatbelt law. State Legislature gave away $12 million 2009 Fed dollars by not passing mandatory law.
At no time did I badmouth Tennessee, nor did I say I'd like to have all of the things I listed. I said I was amazed (and jealous) of some of the freedoms other states have in regards to firearms.
Originally Posted by Agave
Particularly CC without a permit, or barring that, the lifetime permit offered by Indiana.
IMHO I would not even consider having a "cocktail" while I was carrying. If you only had one drink and an incident happened and you had to use your weapon. Cops are called and in the LEO report is "I smelled alcohol on his breath" and testified to that in court. It is not a + but a _ IMHO
... And there's the threadjack. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by IWLAFART
This post isn't about alcohol consumption while carrying, that's a controversial subject around here and I have no intention of going there. It was intended to start a discussion about people, who after learning about the way firearm are treated in other states, realized that the way their state does it may not be the best way after all.
I'm sure most of us can relate to feelings of a little bit of jealousy after learning things about other states in regards to CC.
Edit: To clarify the matter(after realizing that my OP could be construed as a list of things I want), the list I originally made was merely just off the top of my head. It was meant solely to show a quick list of things that are allowed under different states that Tennessee does not have. I'm sorry for any confusion guys and gals. :embarassed:
Originally Posted by Katana
I look at how far "Castle" type protections have gone in some states and simply shake my head that Oregon cannot seem to make serious protections for people who resist crime. It's fairly good, in practice, but the "reasonable man" standard combines with trending liberalism to end up charging so many people who should never see the "business" end of a legal charge, for simply protecting themselves or their families. A whole lot of folks are getting shoved in the hole on trumped-up technicalities, when they did not create the situation at all. It's shameful and embarrassing, as a state, to be so heartless and thoughtless for our own citizens.
Nicely, in Oregon the standard is whether a person was under the influence of a substance, not merely that a person has a certain smell on the breath/clothing. In the case of alcoholic beverages, the standard is 0.08% on the meter (blood or breath).
Originally Posted by IWLAFART
I look to my neighbors to the north and realize how nice I have it here in KY.
I'll put on my flame-suit. :danceban: I agree with all except:
Originally Posted by Katana
- I can't think of anything worse than someone publicly consuming alcohol while carrying a firearm. Is it possible for someone to have a drink or two without becoming a danger to others? Of course. I suspect they'd be the minority. I have the same opinion about drinking and carrying as I do about drinking and driving... it's ridiculous and those who do it should be stopped before they kill someone. If nothing else, if you have to use the firearm in self-defense and you've been drinking.... you're going to have big, big problems on your hand. Carry clean or don't carry.
- Opinions vary and I know there's some hot dogs that would take someone out for stepping foot on their propety, but personally, I'm not going to take anyone's life because they're stealing a power tool from my shed. If they're IN my house and my life or that of my family is in danger - absolutely! I'm, however, of the opinion, you shouldn't use any more force than a LEO would use -- and I haven't seen many LEO's take down a BG for vandalism or theft only. The concept seems off to me.
- CCW without any training whatsoever is a bad idea IMO. We all assume everyone that carries concealed is fit to do so, it's their constitutional right, etc. - but to be honest, I've seen several on here, just in the past few days, that have the wrong idea about CC and could use bare minimum training. It only takes 4-8 hours... it's not invasive, it makes you think about things even the most experienced enthusiast would never consider and should be required. I went above and beyond, personally (which isn't difficult in VA, since you can now watch a video and "qualify.") I don't think there's any such thing as being over-prepared and over-trained.
Everything else - couldn't agree more!