Is this really okay with you?

[wrightme]

SR, I'm out of here for a while, too. Far too many outsiders down here nit picking AZ gun laws and they don't know when to ZIP IT.
I'll probably see you at the next AZCDL event, or an OC/CC event in Tucson or a OC dinner meet in Phoenix.

WHY do you so desire to silence those who may not be in agreement with you? Frankly, it sure seems endemic of those in AZ who OC and who choose to post in this forum. Is it REALLY that okay to act such in AZ? DO you all REALLY dislike outsiders that much?

 

[Sonora Rebel]

yankees....that's funny coming from a fella who lives in AZ.
As far as K being reasonable, you believe it is, I do not. It is the law though and the OP does bring to light the constitutional issues associated with K. Hypothetically speaking, it is unlikely any court, let alone SCOTUS would rule that K is unconstitutional since they have ruled that minor infringements of our 4A right is reasonable. Until stare decisis is a thing of the past it is quite possible that minor infringements will continue to accumulate, in the name of officer safety.

Arizona (which included New Mexico) south of the 34th parallel to the Texas border seceded from the Union in 1861. You need a history lesson?

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate


Better yet... welcome to IGNORE.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

WHY do you so desire to silence those who may not be in agreement with you? Frankly, it sure seems endemic of those in AZ who OC and who choose to post in this forum. Is it REALLY that okay to act such in AZ? DO you all REALLY dislike outsiders that much?

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate

 

[wrightme]

Arizona (which included New Mexico) south of the 34th parallel to the Texas border seceded from the Union in 1861. You need a history lesson?

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate

Better yet... welcome to IGNORE.

The "rest of his type," are OCing citizens like you, whether you are willing to accept it or not. WHY are you so antagonistic towards those who do not think the same as you?

 

[wrightme]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate

Because I DO believe that there are some AZ residents that have the capability of processing differing viewpoints rationally. You are not in that group.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Arizona was a territory back then, not a state, and claimed by the Confederacy. History lesson complete.

Do not misunderstand, I rather like Arizona, the Flagstaff area would be my second choice right behind, very close behind the Lowcountry of South Carolina.

You really do need a history lesson. http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/index.html The Confederacy never 'claimed anything in the 'Gadsden territory'. Articles of secession were drafted in Tuscon and ratified in Mesilla. Arizona began as 'The Confederate Territory of Arizona, 1861', not 'Arizona Territory, 1865' 'You want'a revise our history too?


Seeing as how the 'mods' have deleted my comments within our own state forum... I'm done with OCDO as of now. Congratulations. You've lost another active supporter.

 

[wrightme]

You really do need a history lesson. http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/AZ/index.html The Confederacy never 'claimed anything in the 'Gadsden territory'. Articles of secession were drafted in Tuscon and ratified in Mesilla. Arizona began as 'The Confederate Territory of Arizona, 1861', not 'Arizona Territory, 1865' 'You want'a revise our history too?


Seeing as how the 'mods' have deleted my comments within our own state forum... I'm done with OCDO as of now. Congratulations. You've lost another active supporter.

They didn't delete your "comments." They deleted your attacks.

And, it isn't your own state forum. It is a state forum within OCDO.

 

[Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV]

Technically, Lt Col Baylor "proclaimed" Arizona a Confederate territory on 1 August 1861.

I respect a fella who is firm in his convictions, regardless of any differences in opinion.

While I agree with you sentiment in a general sense, I draw the line at respecting any Islamic psycho's firmness in his convictions.

Lotta personal history between me and them, and

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Not appropriate here

 

[acmariner99]

And I am pretty sure all of us here would not respond well to someone who is firm in their convictions to do harm to ourselves or our loved ones. I respect differences in opinion -- until they tell me how to live or tell me to be a victim. I enjoy honest debate and the last couple of threads have had me really disappointed. There was a lot of personal attacks and a lot of rude comments (You know who you are). I am not sure those who want to take our rights away would think very highly of us.

 

[Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV]

While I agree with you sentiment in a general sense, I draw the line at respecting any Islamic psycho's firmness in his convictions.

Lotta personal history between me and them, and

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Not appropriate here

Well, nuts. I was trying to show a personal struggle as an example -- not trying to necessarily advocate anything. As a Pastor, the struggle to try and find a forgiving heart towards certain groups is actually very difficult -- in spite of what I know.

 

[Super Saiyan]

THen, substitute "fellow Arizona residents who post in this forum area," since you don't claim to have friends that OC.

What part of "What other people think is their own business...I'm not a salesman..." don't you understand?

 

[Super Saiyan]

Seems you ARE a bit of an "image problem" when it comes to public perceptions of citizens with firearms then.

Didn't realize that I was obligated to uphold some sort of universal open carry image. Not interested in doing so either... Like I said, I OC/CC for personal protection, that's it. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. A box of tissues goes for under a dollar at Walmart...

 

[Super Saiyan]

LE is populated by people who make mistakes, some honest mistakes, some not so honest. These mistakes, small and large are routinely excused in the name of officer safety or if that defense fails, qualified immunity. A citizens ability to hold the state, in general, and LE specifically, accountable for their misconduct is becoming increasingly more difficult as a result of legislative action or court rulings. In my view 13-3102 K is a symptom of the very thing that most folks here on OCDO seem to decry, the erosion of our constitutional rights.

I must say that I agree, overall. I believe that any and all forms of government (and by default LE as a branch of government power) should play a very minimal role in the day to day lives of the citizens it governs. The plethora of laws, rules, regulations, and even government agencies that we have on the national and local levels is abusrd. I don't need the government to hold my hand and play mommy and daddy. Is it any wonder that we are accelerating on a downward path to losing our place as the global superpower?

 

[clarkebar]

Well, I didn't realize my post would cause such a stir. I'm glad it's getting some attention though, I think it's important that things like this be brought to light. I like Arizona's gun laws accept for K and it's enough to make me not want to live here, unfortunately. Personally I don't think officer safety should be held in higher regard than individual rights. I think there are plenty of ways officers can keep themselves safe without trampling those rights which they have sworn to support and defend. I don't think K is quite as bad as 12031 but it violates the same right in the same way, which puts it up there on the list of bad legislation. Alternatives are possible and can be considered.
I do, however, understand how difficult it is to change such things and I applaud all who strive to do so. Keep up the good work. It WILL make a difference one day.

 

[wrightme]

Didn't realize that I was obligated to uphold some sort of universal open carry image. Not interested in doing so either... Like I said, I OC/CC for personal protection, that's it. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. A box of tissues goes for under a dollar at Walmart...

It isn't that I "don't like it," nor is there need for your sarcasm.

BUT, frankly, if that is the image you portray, YOU are the type of person that makes public acceptance of the Right so difficult at times. I see no way for someone to fail to see that reality.

 

[Jared]

I am unhappy with the permit system in general, not just in Idaho. No, the capitol district exclusion does not still exist. It was unconstitutional per the state constitution. Idaho's state constitution does not allow for the state to regulate open carry whatsoever.

The answer to your question is that your right to remain silent is out the window.

You see, the way the law is in Arizona and about 10 other states is that you have no right to remain silent if you carry a gun.

If you murdered 4 people and were stopped, you could never be charged with this crime; however, if you are a law abiding gun owner, you must talk.

This may be heading to the courts in Ohio due to the Canton incident.

These notify laws are endangered and they serve no purpose. Any LEO with common sense knows that anyone who would harm them with or without a firearm isn't going to tell them that they are armed, if they are ask, they will simply lie.

If this precedent was ok, then the state could make it a felony for you not to turn yourself in for committing any crime or infraction.

 

[Jared]

You've answered you own scenario. That is RAS. ... not only his safety but yours. Man.... you armchair academics really DO NOT comprehend actuality. Yeah... I'm good with that. I understand that. It's an extenuating circumstance I can live with... and more cops will live because of.

There's a whole bunch of you keyboard konsitutionalists who don't like cops. You don't like authority. Some of you would welcome anarchy. Not everyone who posts here is truthful or even sane, so don't assume that all is sweetness and light. I wonder why this wrankles anybody as much as it seems to, when there much bigger fish to fry elsewhere.

Doubtful that any of you take on the anti's in local newpaper forums like I do and have done for years. This... in areas where the mere presence of a gun will get your face planted in the asphalt 'n a trip to the hoosegow. You won't get your gun back either. Want'a talk 'Constitutional' in that arena?

In conclusion... those of you who are not 'Zonies or have never traveled any distance here have zero appreciation for 'remote'. The law applies to the entire state, not just the paved parts. Off-pavement is a whole 'nuther world most of you will never see.

In all fairness, you most likely get the red carpet treatment by LEO's. I do, I won't hide it. I'm assuming if you are ever pulled over for speeding or anything, you show them your LEOSA ID card (since you were a cop in Maryland if I'm correct) and then they make friendly chat and let you go. I'm in the same position as well.

Most people are not in this position.

Maybe things in Maryland were different, when I was in AZ as a LEO, any felon I had detained never admitted to me that they had a weapon, in fact, the majority of them lied to me about it. Even if subsection k existed back then, they couldn't (and can't be) charged with it because they have a right to remain silent.

If criminals have the right to remain silent, then so should other people exercising their rights. It's the same old song and Brady dance regarding the 2nd amendment, it's always treated differently, and it doesn't matter if the roads are paved or not.

There are more places remote than Arizona, Montana is the most remote state I've ever been to. 99.4 percent of Montana is under constitutional carry (since 1991), and they have no type of must notify statute up there and I can tell you that LEO's aren't dropping like flies in Montana because of that. I have a friend that is currently in the Border Patrol in the middle of nowhere in Montana, and he's not in any less danger in Montana because there is no notification law of any kind... and folks under 21 can carry in any manner. If there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, then it would be ok, but just because someone is carrying does not automatically make them dangerous.

The truth is that you or I will never fall under that category because my creds and your LEOSA creds automatically give us the good guy blessing.

If compromising a right is ok for the safety of LEO's or anyone else, then I think there is a clear case to turn the United States into Singapore. In Singapore, if you possess a firearm, you can be executed. That definitely makes LEO's safe in Singapore. Only a few select people with the blessing of the state can possess arms, anyone else does so at the risk of capital punishment.

 

[Super Saiyan]

It isn't that I "don't like it," nor is there need for your sarcasm.

That was a blanket statement and was not directed towards you specifically. I know that you OC and support OC, so there is no problem between us there.

BUT, frankly, if that is the image you portray, YOU are the type of person that makes public acceptance of the Right so difficult at times. I see no way for someone to fail to see that reality.

Only when someone approaches me with an attitude do they get it back. If someone says "Nice gun." or "Is that a .45?" I will entertain polite conversation, but when I hear "Oh Jeez, what do you need that gun for? You really gonna shoot somebody?" I let them have it. I love the 1st Amendment.

 

[Phoenix David]

In answer to your question Yes.

If you feel that it is a law that will not hold up to Constitutional muster please drive down here, commit some traffic offense, inform the officer that you find 13-3102 K is un-Constitutional and that you refuse to comply with it.

Once you have been arrested and found guilty you can appeal it it to the US Supreme court. You may wish to setup a Pay Pal account for you legal defense fund in advance.

After that you could take on that whole Post office thing, if they are still around.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

In all fairness, you most likely get the red carpet treatment by LEO's. I do, I won't hide it. I'm assuming if you are ever pulled over for speeding or anything, you show them your LEOSA ID card (since you were a cop in Maryland if I'm correct) and then they make friendly chat and let you go. I'm in the same position as well.

Most people are not in this position.

Maybe things in Maryland were different, when I was in AZ as a LEO, any felon I had detained never admitted to me that they had a weapon, in fact, the majority of them lied to me about it. Even if subsection k existed back then, they couldn't (and can't be) charged with it because they have a right to remain silent.

If criminals have the right to remain silent, then so should other people exercising their rights. It's the same old song and Brady dance regarding the 2nd amendment, it's always treated differently, and it doesn't matter if the roads are paved or not.

There are more places remote than Arizona, Montana is the most remote state I've ever been to. 99.4 percent of Montana is under constitutional carry (since 1991), and they have no type of must notify statute up there and I can tell you that LEO's aren't dropping like flies in Montana because of that. I have a friend that is currently in the Border Patrol in the middle of nowhere in Montana, and he's not in any less danger in Montana because there is no notification law of any kind... and folks under 21 can carry in any manner. If there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, then it would be ok, but just because someone is carrying does not automatically make them dangerous.

The truth is that you or I will never fall under that category because my creds and your LEOSA creds automatically give us the good guy blessing.

If compromising a right is ok for the safety of LEO's or anyone else, then I think there is a clear case to turn the United States into Singapore. In Singapore, if you possess a firearm, you can be executed. That definitely makes LEO's safe in Singapore. Only a few select people with the blessing of the state can possess arms, anyone else does so at the risk of capital punishment.

You assume much... know little. I'm not a retired cop... I was just a cop... a big city street cop 'in the hood' for about 4 years. LEOSA doesn't apply. I'm retired USN... that doesn't apply either. I don't care about Montana. This isn't a Montana law... it's an AZ law. I agree with it. It affects 'me'... not you. I will extend being disarmed as a courtesy. It's still a discretionary act by the LEO. There are times I have no need to be armed. That's one of them. 'Not that big of a deal.

I carry for self defense... nothing else. I carried 'OC' before the internet or OCDO was ever thought of. Before 'OC' was even a term. Before there was any question in doing so. Before the AZ CWP 'permit' experiment of 1994 (in violation of the AzC). It's something I either do or don't at my personal discretion. That's what a 'right' is. I drive a cop magnet hotrod... but they don't stop me... 'cause I'm not an idiot either. No RAS to do so.

If you don't like our law... complain to the AZ Legislature, not me.