In less than a week, Arizona residents will be allowed to carry a gun in their pocket or purse without needing paperwork to do so.
Senate Bill 1108, which allows people to carry concealed guns with no permit or safety training, takes effect on July 29, the same day controversial immigration legislation is scheduled to begin enforcement. It makes Arizona the third state behind Alaska and Vermont, all supportive of gun rights, to enact a law that raises concerns for law enforcement.
“It’s disconcerting,” said Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead. “The fact that anyone can walk around and carry a gun without training is disconcerting. We don’t let our police officers walk around with a gun without training. Some people will start shoving a gun down their pants and shoot themselves.”
SB 1108, sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 16. People can carry guns without a permit, but still will not be allowed to take a gun into a bar or restaurant without one, as most such establishments prohibit them anyway.
The law also requires police officers to ask people they pull over or apprehend whether they have any weapons, and if the person says no and is carrying a weapon they still can be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and providing false information to a law enforcement officer — a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and possibly jail time.
Bar owners throughout the East Valley already have a no-guns policy in place, despite the state law requiring permits for people who carry guns into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol.
Phil Marcus has been in the bar business for 15 years in Arizona and owns three bars, Mesa’s Hambone Sports Bar and Grill at 903 W. Main St., one in Phoenix and one in Surprise.
“My particular preference is, I don’t allow anyone in my bar with a gun unless you’re an on-duty police officer,” Marcus said. “I don’t think the law is going to create a bad or dangerous atmosphere. Criminals are going to do whatever they want, and honest people are going to abide by the law.”
At Groggy’s, 2207 W. Main St., Mesa, the no-gun policy also exists, but a bartender there believes people might start trying to bring in guns early on with the law going into effect. However, once the patrons realize they can’t get in with a gun, she believes things will remain the same.
“If people don’t know the law, they might think they’re allowed to bring in a gun, but they’re not,” said Bonnie Harness, who has been a waitress at Groggy’s for six years. “The law doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it will make much of a difference, but we don’t want people in here with guns getting drunk.”
The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, the state police union that oversees 38 different lodges and represents about 7,000 members, opposed the law. The group’s president says it was not needed in a state that already was lenient in issuing concealed weapons permits to gun owners with minimal fingerprint and background checks. The law also prohibits federal regulations to apply on firearms that were manufactured in Arizona, and blocks cities from applying their own laws against people carrying concealed weapons.
“The law now makes requirements and training to carry a gun in Arizona nonexistent,” said Sgt. John Ortolana, president of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police. “I think the law was done to appease the gun lobby. I’m a firm believer in Second Amendment rights, but those rights come with responsibility. There will be people carrying firearms that have no clue about how to operate one, or the problems that can be caused by not knowing how to operate one. Some idiot is going to do something egregious, and there’s going to be an outcry of ‘How could this happen?’ ”
Meanwhile, gun sales remain steady at Glockmeister Glock-Gun Distributor Sales in Mesa, and more people have been coming in to look at smaller handguns, said owner Greg Wolff. The shop sells and distributes firearms to law enforcement officers as well as private owners.
“People are excited about the law and have been calling about it,” he said.
Wolff, a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, said the law “looks good on its face,” but he is concerned about people being able to carry guns without some kind of safety training. “A lot more people are going to carry guns,” he said. “It’s people who have had a gun sitting in a drawer for about 10 years who think they can just (start) carrying it around that I’m worried about.”
Although Arizona will continue its gun permit process through the Department of Public Safety, having a concealed permit will be optional. There were 158,170 active permits issued as of July 11 — up 3,891 since April 4, according to DPS figures.
Although people no longer are required to have permits if they are carrying a concealed weapon and are not required to take a gun safety course if they carry a gun, they still cannot carry a concealed gun across state lines, according to DPS spokesman Robert Bailey.
“Just because we pass a law in Arizona, doesn’t mean they recognize it everywhere else,” Bailey said. “People can still get permits if they want to take a concealed weapon across state lines or take a weapons course.”
There are 34 other states that provide reciprocity by allowing people from Arizona to carry a concealed weapon if they have a permit, according to Pearce.
The legislator said the law is constitutional and a “great bill” for law-abiding citizens. It also increases felonies for criminals carrying guns, Pearce said.
“I take no prisoners when it comes to peoples’ civil liberties and constitutional rights,” he said.
The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police’s Mesa Lodge No. 9 said like every other new law enacted, they will enforce it.
Asking people who are pulled over or apprehended if they are carrying any weapons is something officers already are doing and should be doing all the time anyway, said lodge president Bryan Soller.
“This won’t change the way we do business, but personally, I didn’t think the law was necessary,” Soller said. “We believe it’s a tool that’s been taken away from us. Before, if we asked someone if they were carrying a gun and they said yes, but didn’t have a permit, we could charge them with having a concealed weapon without a permit. Criminals and gang members are going to carry a gun anyway, and they’re the ones who wouldn’t tell you if they were.”
GOAT123 posted at 12:03 pm on Fri, Jul 23, 2010.
Good .
Everyone has the right to defend themselves and the bad guys were already carrying without a permit
Obviousman posted at 2:54 pm on Fri, Jul 23, 2010.
Look, let's go to the instant replay here.
When the Arizona concealed weapons permit was proposed, the police organizations were AGAINST IT. It was going to create anarchy and all that. And guess what — they were WRONG.
When the recent "guns in restaurants" law was proposed, the police organizations were AGAINST IT. We were going to have hundreds of drunk rednecks shooting up the town. Today, an inexplicable lull in bar shootings continues into week 39 with no violence whatsoever.
Now there is a further relaxation in gun laws. And guess what? Surprising absolutely NOBODY, the police organizations are again AGAINST IT! And we should listen to them THIS TIME, I suppose, because they have such an incredible record of BEING RIGHT about this stuff?
Obviousman posted at 3:08 pm on Fri, Jul 23, 2010.
And obviously, the cops don't even listen to what their own mouths are saying:
“We believe it’s a tool that’s been taken away from us. Before, if we asked someone if they were carrying a gun and they said yes, but didn’t have a permit, we could charge them with having a concealed weapon without a permit. Criminals and gang members are going to carry a gun anyway, and they’re the ones who wouldn’t tell you if they were.”
So, in other words, we just got rid of a tool you could use to arrest somebody who was UP TO NO HARM, while changing absolutely nothing about the work you need to do to detect actual criminals.
What's wrong with these cops?
AZMomma posted at 3:30 pm on Fri, Jul 23, 2010.
Just remember where else you CANNOT carry a weapon, including around schools, and into City, County, State and Federal office buildings.
When in doubt, do some research (Google) and be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner/carrier.
knwldgeispwr posted at 3:33 pm on Fri, Jul 23, 2010.
"It’s disconcerting,” said Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead. “The fact that anyone can walk around and carry a gun without training is disconcerting.”
Nothing new here. Criminals have been doing it for longer than the CCW permit system was around.
What really irritates me about this guy Milstead and his statement is that on its face it is completely unjustified and makes no sense whatsoever. ANYONE who isn’t a prohibited possessor can legally walk around RIGHT NOW, carrying a weapon, WITHOUT any training. That’s nothing new. A criminal who is a prohibited possessor is going to carry a concealed weapon regardless of any law on the books. You should already know that. Please get your facts straight before you invalidate your own point again in the future.
Allow me to make a suggestion. Since it is pretty obvious that you have a problem with civilians and firearms, perhaps Arizona isn’t the best environment for someone like yourself. California abhors civilian rights when it comes to firearms. So does Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York. Maybe you could go work with George Gascon? Honestly, they love giving weapons to LEO’s in CA. Most jurisdictions in CA will do anything they can to remove firearm rights from civilians. The same goes for Chicago, and New York. I bet you’d be chums in no time with Richard Daley in Chicago. Have you looked for work there? I mean nobody other than a cop is going to have a gun in Chicago. Or New York. Or San Francisco. Right? I bet you’d feel much safer elsewhere, knowing John and Jane Lawabider didn’t have any weapons.
Oh…I did have a question. Is it true that ignorance is bliss? I’m just asking because I figure you would know.
11secgn posted at 9:38 pm on Fri, Jul 23, 2010.
knwldgeispwr... "carrying a gun without training" is the key phrase. Criminals, especially gang members, train with their weapons. Especially gang members who have served in the military. The average "Joe", does not. The average person buys a gun, thinking they know how to use it properly and maybe puts a few rounds through it, at some type of stationary target in a no stress situation. That is unsafe for everyone. I'm not saying people don't have the right to carry a gun and defend themselves, I believe in the right to carry firearms. I'm just saying, if you are going to have a gun for protection, get proper training and practice often.
retired03 posted at 4:48 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
now the fun begins.... there will be some horible accidents and those "so called law abiding citizens" that will shoot an innocent because they will be emboldened by the gun under their belt. This is a bad deal. if just one person gets killed because some "law abiding citizen" with no training shoots them it is wrong. If pierce or anyone else thinks otherwise your head is in the sand.
wdgnas posted at 5:31 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
this is an accident, or not, waiting to happen...
BambiB posted at 5:44 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
>> " if just one person gets killed because some "law abiding citizen" with no training shoots them it is wrong.< - retarded03
So, if just one person gets killed because they were barred by law from having a gun, that would be wrong too... right?
Your argument is puerile and illogical.
BambiB posted at 5:44 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
>> Some people will start shoving a gun down their pants and shoot themselves. <
Then that would be their own fault, wouldn't it? Are the cops going to run around telling people what they can eat, or that they cannot smoke? Obesity and smoking kill a lot more people than guns ever will. I think the cops are just jealous that they will no longer be, "The Only Ones" in Arizona (see, "DEA Agent shoots self" on Youtube).
>> “We believe it’s a tool that’s been taken away from us. Before, if we asked someone if they were carrying a gun and they said yes, but didn’t have a permit, we could charge them with having a concealed weapon without a permit. Criminals and gang members are going to carry a gun anyway, and they’re the ones who wouldn’t tell you if they were.”<
So what this pig is saying is that it was a nice tool to use to harass law-abiding citizens. Now when someone without a criminal record is asked if they have a gun, the pigs can't harass them for it. But if they ask a criminal if she has a gun, the criminal is going to say, "No" anyway!? (And because they have a right not to self-incriminate, my bet is, she can say, "No" and never be convicted of the crime of failing to admit she's carrying a gun!)
These cops are messed up.
11secgn posted at 8:58 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
BambiB... Are you serious?! Police officers, or as you call them "Pigs", being jealous they wont be the only ones carrying guns!!! Criminals carry guns, we know that. Criminals do not carry their guns in the open, as most law abiding citizens do. Criminals conceal their guns, until it is time for them to use the gun, i.e. a burglary, carjacking, robbery etc. The law gave law enforcment a tool to get the criminal off the street before the criminal has a chance to use the gun for their crimes and kill someone because they didn't want to get caught taking $50.00 from a Circle K, or the mother with a child in a car seat didn't get out of her car fast enough during a carjacking.
basha76 posted at 9:10 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
“If people don’t know the law, they might think they’re allowed to bring in a gun, but they’re not,” said Bonnie Harness, who has been a waitress at Groggy’s for six years. “The law doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it will make much of a difference, but we don’t want people in here with guns getting drunk.”
NOTE to the bar business and the watress: The law does not permit people to "get drunk" in your establishment anyway, as a watiress she should know that part of title 4, but apparently she doesn't (get a clue lady)
stan000 posted at 9:51 am on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
I always honor the signs business post prohibiting firearms, it is their property and they have the right to set the rules for visitors. It hasn't proved to be much of a problem to find a similar store that will allow guns inside to do my shopping at.
I would really like to see a law that made it a duty for the owner that decides to prohibit guns to provide for the safety of their customers. Only makes sense that if they limit your ability to protect yourself they should have to be responsible for providing the protection.
randwolf13 posted at 5:18 pm on Sat, Jul 24, 2010.
Police chiefs are political puppets of the socialists. Look at Vermont gun laws vs DC or Chicago and tell me one more time how people are going to start killing themselves and everybody else in sight just because they exercize a natural/god given right guaranteed by the US Constitution. The arrogance of these tyrants is most evil.
AZMomma posted at 8:56 am on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Back in Oct 1966 a deranged teen boy entered the RoseMar Beauty School in Mesa and systematically shot and killed many people...including a baby.
If just ONE customer had been armed, he might have been prevented from this slaughter.
In TX, a deranged gunman shot and killed innocent people at a local Luby's. One of the customers (female) later testified before a Congressional Committee that she had made the conscious decision to leave her legal weapon at home that day. Her parents were with her, and they were killed. She stated that she MIGHT have been able to protect them (and others).
Old cliche, but VERY true...
"When seconds count, the Police are just minutes away".
Just be sure you are ready and able to protect yourself and others and to defend your actions ( to a legal standard).
Mustang posted at 11:47 am on Sun, Jul 25, 2010.
Let's look at what Arizona law really says about concealed carry. You will soon be able to carry a concealed weapon into a bar that has not posted agains such carry but the law also says you cannot legally consume alcohol while carrying concealed. So why would you even be in such an establishment when carrying concealed?
Mesa Mick posted at 8:32 am on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Common sense Public Safety reasoning trumps the privilidge to carry concealed without having demonstrated beforehand that one is proficient in the art of "pistolcraft".
The constitution gives Americans the right to own guns - and I agree 100% - but face it folks it does not give one the right to endanger others while doing so.
Yeah, yeah I know then only criminals will be carrying without a permit but it's criminal to let some neophite do so without having demonstrated proficieny in basic firearms safety.
VTGuns posted at 6:39 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Arizona has nothing to fear from allowing concealed carry without a permit. Vermont has never had a permit requirement. Yet, year after year Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.
I have lived in Vermont all of my life, except for four years in the U.S. Air Force. I have been a police officer in Vermont. Our lack of a carry permit requirement has not been a problem.
In fact, our crime rate being so low without gun registration or permit laws flies in the face of the basic contentions of gun control advocates. If there is a bar in Vermont that bans guns it is a well kept secret.
If there is any significant change in crime in Arizona it will be a reduction, for criminals will know there is a greater chance that the citizen(s) they target will be armed.
Jagermann posted at 11:20 pm on Mon, Jul 26, 2010.
Was this reporter purposely being misleading or are they just completely ignorant? You never needed safety training BEFORE this legislation to carry a firearm. Nothing changed! The only thing that changes is we finally eliminate the need for a permission slip from the government in order to carry a firearm concealed or openly thus making it a right rather than a privilege. It is retarded to need a permit in order conceal a firearm when you could carry it openly without one. Anyone who can legally own a firearm could get a conceal carry permit. So what in the world was the point of the permit?! It was just an idiotic concept that is unconstitutional. Now it needs to be taken to the federal level. The second amendment gives the people the right to keep and BEAR arms. It doesn't just say you can only have a handgun in your home.
grandma02 posted at 8:16 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
I'm a 65 year old grandma, only one brush with the law in my life which was about 9 years ago in Arizona. I was shopping at night, stopped by police for a tailight out, they asked if I had a gun and I said yes. The officer got really mean and asked where. I pointed to the seat but the gun was covered up by wal-mart shopping bags and my sweater which I forgot to put on the back of the seat. I got charged with carrying a concealed weapon, put on probation and have that on my "record" even tho the judge set it aside later. The judge was upset that I was even in court. Now I feel safe because I will carry in my purse when I'm in McDonalds. Yes, I was in the Army and know how to handle a weapon. Citizens should be armed at all times, and what a surprise to the crooks who pull out guns if everybody else pulls out theirs too! Just because we are old, doesn't mean we are sitting ducks. Lots of us older folks know how to shoot very well and we have a right to protect ourselves. Shame on anybody who wants us to be unarmed and helpless.
grandma02 posted at 8:20 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
I'm a 65 year old grandma, only one brush with the law in my life which was about 9 years ago in Arizona. I was shopping at night, stopped by police for a tailight out, they asked if I had a gun and I said yes. The officer got really mean and asked where. I pointed to the seat but the gun was covered up by wal-mart shopping bags and my sweater which I forgot to put on the back of the seat. I got charged with carrying a concealed weapon, put on probation and have that on my "record" even tho the judge set it aside later. The judge was upset that I was even in court. Now I feel safe because I will carry in my purse when I'm in McDonalds. Yes, I was in the Army and know how to handle a weapon. Citizens should be armed at all times, and what a surprise to the crooks who pull out guns if everybody else pulls out theirs too! Just because we are old, doesn't mean we are sitting ducks. Lots of us older folks know how to shoot very well and we have a right to protect ourselves. Shame on anybody who wants us to be unarmed and helpless. Sorry if this is a repost.
grandma02 posted at 8:24 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
Its going to be interesting if one or more of the police officers who are against people having the right to be armed, will find themselves one day being defended by an armed citizen. Maybe even an older lady like myself who most wouldn't even think of as being armed.
WinstonSmith posted at 10:33 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
It's actually possible to kill somebody with your First Amendment - Free Speech rights, too. We don't require "training" before you go out in public, warning you not to libel somebody or give them false instructions that could lead to their death. Yes, you may (and probably should) be held liable for what you say, but it's after the fact, when there's a CRIME.
CRIME requires a VICTIM.
Carrying a weapon, concealed or openly, has no victim.
Shooting a person without cause (i.e. without defending your life or the life of loved ones) is a CRIME because there's a VICTIM.
WinstonSmith posted at 10:40 am on Tue, Jul 27, 2010.
Soller said: “Criminals and gang members are going to carry a gun anyway, and they’re the ones who wouldn’t tell you if they were.”
Well, yes, but ...
A CRIMINAL is somebody who commits an act of CRIME which requires a VICTIM.
Somebody should point out to law enforcement, that while they may be thuggish scum of the earth, a "gang member" is not automatically a "criminal" until they commit a crime. They may dress funny, speak funny, not hold a job, and travel in groups, but those are not crimes.
In fact, somebody should point out to Law Enforcement that they should only be concerned with CRIMINALS, and mentioning "gang members" is a mislabeled waste of our time.
When Police try to PREVENT CRIME, all we get is something between George Orwell's 1984 and Tom Cruise from the Pre-Crime department in Minority Report. We are innocent until proven guilty, and that means CRIME which requires a VICTIM.
If CRIME gets defined without a VICTIM, then we are all the VICTIMS of a corrupt government.
DarinAJ posted at 12:25 pm on Wed, Jul 28, 2010.
Wht would any police officials be alarmed. We have been able to carry guns forever now. This just means I can leave my shirt untucked now.
bacon posted at 2:33 pm on Thu, Jul 29, 2010.
so everyone's complaining about this new law, how many of you actually have a CCW or have gone through the "training" 8 hrs of lecture and shooting 5 shots and 5yards and 5 shots at 10 yards center mass. you can use anything .22cal or bigger to qualify and only 7 of the 10 shots count and a short written test. so to those of you complaining their really wasnt much so called training or gun safety to begin with get over it responsible gun owners will continue to be and well gun safety is in the person handling the weapon they are a machine that works pull trigger send bullet down barrel.
Jacey22 posted at 4:22 pm on Thu, Jul 29, 2010.
I just hope idiots dont abuse this new law, cause i wouldnt be suprised if the government was just throwing this law out there so we would all start carrying and blow eachother away over every stupid argument now that we have guns concealed, and then they're gonna step back and say "see you guys cant handle guns so were outlawing them alltogether" obama tried to take a step in this direction with his tax increases, so who knows but i hope it doesnt get to that.
RollerCam posted at 2:59 pm on Fri, Jul 30, 2010.
I never did like paying money in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is too hard to understand?
For the first time in quite a while, I'm very proud to be an Arizona citizen.