Homeless in Arizona

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

At that time in Arizona it was illegal for people to carry concealed weapons, and Ricky discovered this document, which says Arizona's laws banning concealed weapons was unconstitutional. Since then Arizona modified it's laws so that pretty much anybody 21 or older who isn't a felon can carry a concealed weapon without getting a silly permit.

Here is part of Ricky Duncan's Concealed Carry Document:

The Records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 Pages 678 and 679. Edited by: John S. Goff (C) The Supreme Court of Arizona

Mr. Chairman: Are there any objections or corrections to Section 32?

Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of Section 32. I never in all my life found it necessary to carry a six-shooter and I have passed through nearly all the scencs (sic) and experiences of this wild and unsettled country. Carrying arms is dangerous. It is a very dangerous thing to oneself and to one's associates and should not be permitted under any circumstances. I have seen lives lost and innocent blood spilled just through the carrying of arms, concealed weapons under one's coat or shirt. It is most dangerous and vile; a practice that should never be permitted except in times of war and never in times of peace. Think of it; carrying a six shooter or a knife or some other terrible arm of defense, and then in a moment of heated passion using that weapon. I do not believe in it and I move to strike out that section.

Mr. Webb: I second that motion for I agree with the gentleman from Maricopa that it is a pernicious thing and should not be included in this bill. I, too, in all my experiences, have never seen the time when it was necessary to carry concealed weapons except in times of Indian troubles, and have had many and varied experiences, in cow camps. I have been in many places where some might deem it necessary to come armed, but I did not, nor do I believe it necessary to do so now. We are no longer a frontier country, and if we did not need arms in the early days of pioneering in this country, we do not now, and I second the motion.

Mr. Crutchfield: I move to amend by inserting after the word "impair" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime."

Mr. Baker: That is all right and I second the motion.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out all of Section 32 and substituting the following in lieu thereof: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for their safety and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Mr. Feeney: I second that motion.

Mr. Chairman: The question comes up on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cochise, Mr. Parsons, to strike out Section 32, and insert in lieu thereof his amendment. Those in favor of this motion answer "aye", opposed "nay". The motion is lost. The question now comes up on the amendment offered by Mr. Crutchfield to insert after the word "impaired" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime." Those in favor of this motion answer "aye", opposed "nay". The secretary will call the roll. Roll Call showed 22 "Ayes" 23 "Nays".

Mr. Chairman: The motion is lost, and Section 32 will stand approved as read unless there are other amendments. Are there any objections to Section 33?

SECTION 32: The right of the individual citizens to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

I suspect that Jennifer White and the other gun grabbing, atheist Democrats at HSGP (Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix), AU-GP (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Greater Phoenix), FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation, Phoenix Chapter) and Secular Coalition for Arizona will HATE this blurb, but what do you expect from a bunch of gun grabbers.

Source

U.S. court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public

Associated Press 5:51 p.m. MST June 9, 2016

U.S. court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public

Attorney Russ Richelsoph explains what the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on concealed weapons means for Arizonans. Mark Quinones | azcentral.com

In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

By a vote of 7-4, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must supply a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. People who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are often given permits.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.

California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.

Because Arizona state law allows the open carrying of concealed firearms, this ruling will not impact those within state lines.

Charles Heller, co-founder and spokesman of Arizona Citizens Defense League, said the federal appeals ruling should have zero impact on Arizonans.

"If the 9th circuit is illiterate as to article 2 section 26 of Arizona Constitution, please have them meet me at the range en banc and I will allow them to experience its meaning first-hand."

The National Rifle Association called the ruling "out of touch."

"This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection," said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.

Arizonans should continue to familiarize themselves with gun laws in other states if they want to take their guns with them when they travel, said Russ Richelsoph, a criminal defense attorney at Davis Miles McGuire Gardner.

Richelsoph said the benefit of living in Arizona and owning a permit is that some states will recognize it, such as New Mexico and Texas.

"If the court had ruled that there was a right to carry a firearm in public then California couldn't have a law that was more restrictive," he said. "But in Arizona, gun laws are less restrictive. In Arizona, it's a state law that you can (carry a gun) and the law won't be overturned."

The New York-based gun control organization Everytown welcomed the decision as "a major victory for public safety."

The 9th Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit Edward Peruta filed challenging the San Diego County sheriff's refusal to issue him a permit because he failed to cite a "good cause." The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.

Peruta argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

During oral arguments before the 11-judge 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.

California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.

Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.