Senate votes in favor of concealed weapons

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Published/Last Modified on Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:33 PM MDT


PHOENIX -- Siding with gun owner over cops, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed Friday to let people carry concealed weapons without first getting a state permit.


The 4-3 vote came despite the comments from several police officers who said that letting anyone age 18 have a hidden gun will make their jobs more dangerous. Friday's vote sends the measure to the full Senate.


Phoenix Police Lt. Jennifer LaRoque related to lawmakers how, if she had "reasonable suspicion'' to stop a vehicle she pulls it over and finds there are several "known gang members.'' She would tell them to get out and, if she has legal reason, pats them down to look for weapons.


"Right away, if I find a weapon, I can arrest them'' on a charge of misconduct involving weapons, "and they go to jail,'' LaRoque said. But if this law is approved, the lieutenant said if she finds no outstanding warrants or probable cause to make an arrest, "after I'm done with the stop I go back and I have to now deliver the weapon back to this person.''


But Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, chided police for coming to the Capitol now to say that the safest thing is to allow only those with background checks, training and proficiency testing to have a gun that isn't visible.


He said police opposed the 1994 law that created the first exception to laws that, until then, required anyone who wanted to be armed to have the weapon visible. Pearce said they insisted at the time that it would result in danger to police officers and the community as a whole -- the same fears they are raising now.


"The exact opposite has proven to be true,'' he said. And Pearce said he has no reason to believe their fears that letting anyone have a concealed weapon will cause problems.


Pearce had the same criticism for Attorney General Terry Goddard who also testified against the legislation. In 1994 Goddard, as a candidate for governor, said he would have vetoed the bill that permitted concealed weapons.


SB 1270 is being pushed by Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said 35 years of restrictions on gun ownership has not made people safer.


"And yet statistics make it very clear that in pro-gun communities and pro-gun states like Alaska and Vermont, that they are safer in the violent crime areas,'' Allen said. Both states allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon.


But Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, said Alaska has the second highest rate of firearms violence in the country.


Conversely, he said that Massachusetts, about the same size as Arizona but with much stricter gun laws, had only a third the number of homicides as here.


Allen said all the laws do are impose restrictions on those who obey them.


"If a person is going to commit a violent crime against anyone, whether it's coming into this building to shoot one of us, a cop on the street, the gun isn't the problem,'' she said. "It's the people.''


Pearce agreed.


"We have laws against bad guys,'' he said. "Let's give the good guys the right to do what I think our founders decided a long time ago when they recognized our God-given rights to bear arms.''


Some of the debate went beyond the question of whether anyone should be able to carry a concealed weapon.


Allen's legislation would leave in place the existing laws that allow those who want to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. And it would give those people the right to take their guns into places where weapons are not now allowed.


Cheuvront said that includes "public events'' such as street fairs and block parties where city permits are required -- and where alcohol often is served.


"We are going down a very dangerous route,'' he said.


Allen said his fears are misplaced.


"If crime are not happening now at those events, why would crime change if those same people are going to those same events and they happen to have a gun in their pocket?'' she asked. And Allen said she has never heard of any situation where anyone who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon has ever committed a crime while carrying that gun.

Comments

    Michael Morrison wrote on Jul 10, 2009 3:42 AM:

    " As a dual US-British Citizen I applaud this decision. I live in both Scottsdale and London and can only dream that I could carry a gun in London to protect myself from the epidemic of Knife Crimes. Don’t let the media tell you otherwise. I’m in London right now and everyone I speak to wishes that the 2nd Amendment existed here in the UK. The Brits have been neutered; no guns at all and the criminals are having a field day. The murder rate per 100,000 citizens is no different here than in the US. The only difference is the media distorts the numbers by only calculating murders by gun. Here in the UK murders are committed everyday by Hoodies (youths wearing hooded sweat shirts) using knifes. Add in the knife murders and the UK is, in my opinion, more dangerous than the US.

    During the 1990s I lived in California and spent 7 years in political office; City Council and at the County Level. The only reason I had a CCW was because I was on the City Council and I asked the Chief of Police to issue me one. There were only 2 CCWs in the entire city that I served; mine and one issued to a Firearms Instructor. Now there is Zero. I moved to Arizona and the other gentleman passed away a while back.

    The argument that this law will create more crime is in itself ludicrous. Before this law came to be, the Bad Guys were carrying concealed weapons without a permit knowing that at most it was a misdemeanor crime if caught. The Good Guys did not carry concealed weapons without a permit because they knew it was illegal and did not want a criminal record.

    The Bad Guys will continue to carry concealed weapons whether this law passed or not. The only difference now is that the Good Guys have the opportunity to protect themselves. No one says you have to carry, but now you can if you want to.

    I do disagree that this law will allow those under 21 to carry. Some will argue that 18 year olds carry guns in the military, but remember those 18, 19 and 20 year olds are heavily disciplined and monitored. Military weapons are kept in the Armory and only taken out for training or duty purposes. You don’t get to keep your weapon on you whenever you want; only when you are given a direct order.

    The argument from Stan Tucci that “Allowing anyone to carry a firearm without being checked out is asking for trouble” is flawed. Those people who would apply for a Permit, and therefore would be “checked out” are Law-Abiding Citizens. The criminals would never get “checked out,” but would carry a weapon anyway.

    Good for you Arizona; I chose the right state to be a US Citizen! To Sen. Sylvia Allen, expect a nice donation to your next Campaign. "

    paul wrote on Jun 24, 2009 4:26 PM:

    " Everybody should carry,this state is in one freakin mess ,just read what little you get from the tucson and phoenix papers.Can't even check your mailbox in my neighborhood "

    curious wrote on Jun 23, 2009 5:46 PM:

    " this law is ridiculous "

    Stan Tucci wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:35 AM:

    " This is not good. Allowing anyone to carry a firearm without being checked out is asking for trouble.

    I think their is nothing wrong with getting a permit but to allow anyone almost anywhere to carry a gun is dangerous. "

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   



Classifieds

View All Ads
Place an Ad

Jobs

View All Jobs


Homes

View All Homes


Autos

View All Autos

Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750