Arizona Is Reverting To The Wild, Wild West

Filed in National by on April 29, 2010

Permits?  We don’t need no stinkin’ permits.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.

Bet law enforcement is sleeping easier.  And, if you chose not to get a permit then you’re no longer required to attend classes.  I’m seeing a problem here, and it looks like I’m not alone.

Retired Mesa police officer Dan Furbee runs a business teaching permit and other gun safety classes. He said if most people choose not to get a permit, it will put several hundred Arizona firearms instructors out of business.

“It’s going to hurt,” he said.

But he said what really concerns him is that the new law will allow people who have had no education about Arizona’s laws and no training on the shooting range to carry a concealed gun. The eight-hour class currently required to get a permit includes information on state law and gun safety, as well as requires students to be able to hit a target 14 out of 20 times. Furbee said his class at Mesa-based Ultimate Accessories costs $79, plus $60 for the five-year permit.

“I fully agree that we have a right to keep and bear arms,” Furbee said. “But if you are not responsible enough to take a class and learn the laws, you are worse than part of the problem.

“If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you should have some kind of training and show that you are at least competent to know how the gun works and be able to hit a target,” he said. “You owe the people around you a measure of responsibility.” [emphasis mine]

There’s also this:

Brewer last week did sign a separate law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.

How do you determine who will “keep” their gun in Arizona?  Is it some sort of pinkie-pledge?

It gets even better…

During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.

What could possibly go wrong with mixing loaded guns and alcohol?

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (41)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joanne Christian says:

    My son called me the other day about this one. The daughter–a student teacher out there–is now very careful to ask “Are you packing LUNCH, or buying today?”–wouldn’t want to misspeak on anyone’s rights. Since only law enforcement has the right to know….

  2. a.price says:

    “What could possibly go wrong with mixing loaded guns and alcohol?”… and making it a crime to be brown without papers. what could possibly happen when armed, drunk white trash think they are upholding the law and protecting the homeland by making a citizens arrest of … whoever.

  3. Joanne Christian says:

    I fear for the stagecoaches now.

  4. I don’t think states can exempt themselves from federal law.

  5. anon says:

    I don’t think states can exempt themselves from federal law.

    They can pass any law they want, but if it conflicts with Federal law they just can’t enforce it. It’ll end up in court. That is what the wingnuts want, a show trial.

  6. Why should there be permits for exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution? We don’t demand permits to be allowed to exercise freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government or (except for crowd control and scheduling purposes) freedom to peaceably assemble.

  7. bamboozer says:

    Let me say it yet again: Concealed carry for all at the Supreme Court, they want it, they should have it.

  8. snowzer says:

    I am particularly upset that McCain, not content with Wild West guns laws in his home state, is co-sponsoring a bill that would prevent the city legislature of Washington, DC from passing any gun control law stronger than federal law (even though our current laws were determined to be constitutional just recently). So much for local autonomy.

  9. Snowzer — ain’t no such thing as local autonomy for DC. Read the US Constitution for details.

  10. MJ says:

    Moose – you again show your ignorance when it comes to government. DC does have local autonomy, it’s called Home Rule, and it was enacted by Congress in 1973. Of course, we forgot, you know everything.

  11. liberalgeek says:

    How is it different asking someone to get a permit to carry a hidden weapon and asking someone to file for a permit to exercise their right to freely assemble or to register your church as a non-profit entity?

  12. MJ — ultimately Congress has authority, as per the US Constitution. What Congress has given, Congress can take away if it is abused.

  13. MJ says:

    Moose – Congress can only block laws enacted by the DC Council and signed by the Mayor, and they have to do it within 30 legislative days of the mayor’s signature. After that, Congress cannot do anything. And while Congress does have to approve the budget passed by the City Council, the courts have frowned upon putting riders that overrule laws enacted by the Council or by initiative.

    Your Congress giveth, Congress can take away statement wins this weeks award for the most asinine comment by a teabagging asshole on DL. From what you’re stating, Congress can override the laws and ordinances of any state of locality? FAIL!

    Get your facts straight before you go spouting off like you’re some sort of educator. Again, I forgot, you know everything.

  14. MJ:

    Article I, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power. . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…

    As such, Congress has the authority to legislatively undo ANYTHING passed by the local DC authorities at any time for any reason — something that it does not have the authority to do with any other state or locality. If you don’t like that aspect of the Constitution, get it amendment.

  15. MJ says:

    Moose – you really are a pathetic schmuck. Read the Home Rule Act enacted in 1973. I linked to it, or don’t you know how to click on a link. Since Home Rule, Congress has rarely blocked or repealed any legislative act approved by the DC Council and signed by the Mayor.

  16. And yet, under the Constitution, it may do so. My point is therefore correct, though you do not appear to like it.

    Unless, of course, you wish to argue that the Home Rule Act is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the US Constitution.

  17. MJ says:

    Moose is now known as Schmucky the Clown, for he is what he is.

    Schmucky, you stated – “what Congress has given, Congress can take away if it is abused.” No reference to DC or anything else. When you were called out on your phallic, I mean fallacy, you then switch to talking about DC. And then you get all high and mighty. There, it’s in the Constitution.

    Again, Schmucky, go play in your own backyard. Or did the blogs in Texas ban you because they saw how much of an idiot you really are?

  18. P.Schwartz says:

    Arizona Legislature Passes Bill Banning Ethnic Studies Programs

    foxnews.com ^ | April 30, 2010
    After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature sent Gov. Jan Brewer a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences. After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences. The bill, which passed 32-26 in the state House, had been approved by the Senate a day earlier. It now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer…

  19. Amazing, MJ — in a discussion of DC legislation being overturned by Congress and your raising of Home Rule, I made a statement regarding DC without specifically mentioning DC because any rational person would have presumed I was talking about DC in the context of the discussion. Indeed, i was pointing to the source of the authority that Congress has in this case. What the F*&^ is your problem?!?!?

    I’m sorry that you are incapable of making rational response to my arguments. I’m sorry that you are incapable of following the trail of our conversation. I’m curious — is your problem a closed head injury, Alzheimer’s disease, or syphilitic dementia?

  20. MJ says:

    Schmucky, you’re just sorry. A sorry excuse for a teacher, a sorry excuse for a man, oh, hell, you’re just plain sorry. I know that you get a charge out of your insults – makes you feel more of a man, doesn’t it. My problem is with Beckian-Palinistas like you who think you have all of the answers, and when proven wrong, refuse to admit it. You stated that there was no local autonomy in DC – I proved you wrong. You just couldn’t accept the fact that you had been proven wrong, once again.

    Now, go off to the corner and have a good wank, as that’s probably the only excitement you’re going to get at home this week.

  21. Well, MJ, seems appropriate that your avatar is a cat, given that you are such a pussy.

    Let’s get back to basics. While there is home rule in DC, ultimately the Constitution places the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the] District” in the hands of the US Congress, meaning that there is really no true autonomy there, merely a privilege granted which may be revoked or suspended by the Congress at its discretion. So again, it is you who have been proved wrong.

  22. MJ says:

    Schmucky, you’re not being practical. Any move to repeal Home Rule for DC would be defeated in Congress or would fail by a Presidential veto. Your argument fails.

    Anyone who posts “Instead we see that Muslims continue following the bloody example set by their murderous false prophet Muhammad (pbuh*).
    *pbuh=PLACE BACON UPON HIM” on their website loses all moral authority to criticize anyone on any blog.

    You are not only a failure with your arguments, you are also a bigot.

  23. Funny that you had to go back to 2006 to find an objectionable statement — and that you continue to violate your own standard that a poster link to the source in order for it to be considered a valid citation. I guess that just constitutes more liberal hypocrisy on your part.

    But I’ll concede I said it — and stand by it today.

    1) Are you familiar with the early history of Islam and deeds of Muhammad and his immediate successors? Do you deny that the early history of Islam is written in the blood of non-Muslims who refused to submit to Islam?

    2) Do you deny that, to a Christian, Muhammad is a false prophet due to his denial of certain essential elements of Christian doctrine?

    3) Do you deny that there is a significant segment of Muslims today that continues to believe — and act on the belief — that the proper response to the failure of non-Muslims to follow the tenets of Islam is to engage in acts of murder and mayhem against them?

    4) Do you believe it is an act of bigotry for a Christian to insult Muhammad? If so, is it an act of bigotry for a Muslim to insult Jesus by saying Jesus is merely a prophet, not the Son of God? And is it an act of bigotry for an atheist to use insulting names for God of insult religious believers because of their religious faith? How about to write and/or stage a play that depicts Jesus as a homosexual, knowing it will offend a sizable portion of the Christian community? Or does your bigotry standard only apply to Christians who offend others, but not to those who offend Christians?

  24. MJ says:

    Actually, I just googled your website and that was the first thing that came up. And I didn’t link to it as you provide a link to your vile website when you post your name on your comments. So I violated nothing. At least this time you had the balls to admit your bigotry.

    I wouldn’t have any idea what “christians” think about Mohammad as I am not of that faith. I do know that my people were subjected to the “convert or die” doctrine of the Catholic Church (which was the only game in town) for hundreds of years.

    It is an act of bigotry to insult anyone’s faith, Schmucky. Putting on a play that might depict Jesus as being gay is not insulting; however, some might find it in poor taste. And saying that Jesus is “merely a prophet” is not an insult.

    Basically, you’re saying that if you aren’t a Christian, than you’re doomed to eternal damnation until you accept Jesus as your savior. And that is religious bigotry.

    All I know is that the “christian right” is neither.

  25. pandora says:

    Ah… my problem with all organized religions. Us vs Them. We’re right, you’re wrong. You’re damned! No, you’re damned! No proof necessary.

  26. Let’s grade your answers, MJ:

    1) No answer — you get a zero.
    2) Indicated ignorance — again, a zero.
    3) Failed to answer — another Zero.
    4) Convoluted answer — I’ll give you half credit, since you only answer half the questions. Your position seems to be that Christians and their beliefs can be insulted and offended at will. That makes it clear that you hold a double standard when it comes to religious bigotry — one for Christians, and one for everyone else.

    In the end, you score a 12.5% on my little quiz. By any measure, in any teacher’s classroom, you fail.

  27. pandora — I respect your position, even though I disagree with it.

  28. MJ says:

    Schmucky, I seriously question your fitness to be an educator. And before you go off on a “liberal bias against those who oppose your viewpoint” tantrum, as your ilk does, I question you fitness to be an educator because you’re simply a moron and a bigot. You aren’t qualified to “grade” me or anyone else.

    Now, go back to your little Texas sandbox and shoot some coyotes with Rick Perry.

  29. a.price says:

    moose, you failed this one BIG TIME. Seems Christians ALWAYS conveniently forget about the Inquisition (where a convert or die law was in effect) and the Crusades and the bind eye Pope Nutless Bastard IV turned to the Holocaust (assuming you believe the Holocaust happened). You are no different. just another christian elitist redneck

  30. Ah, name-calling from MJ. Yawn — sign of the morally and intellectually bankrupt.

  31. Let’s talk about those things, a.hole.

    The Inquisition was wrong — and contrary to the teachings of Christ. Sadly, contemporary Muslim terrorism is perfectly consistent with the teachings of Muhammad and the example of his life.

    As for Pope Pius XII, you are woefully uninformed about his actions during the Holocaust. Aside from authorizing the shelter of Roman Jews in the Vatican during WWII, he also encouraged Catholic institutions to shelter Jews whenever possible. The Israeli diplomat and historian Pinchas Lapide estimated that between 700,000 and 860,000 Jews were saved by the action of the Catholic Church.

    During the war, the New York Times said this of Pius:

    “This Christmas more than ever Pope Pius XII is a lonely voice crying out in the silence of a continent. The pulpit whence he speaks is more than ever like the Rock in which the Church was founded, a tiny island lashed and surrounded by a sea of war… When a leader bound impartially to nations on both sides condemns as heresy the new form of national state which subordinates everything to itself; when he declares that whoever wants peace must protect against ‘arbitrary attacks’ the ‘juridical safety of individual’; when he assails violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human beings for no reason other than race or political opinion; when he says that people must fight for a just and decent peace, a ‘total peace’–the ‘impartial’ judgment is like a verdict in our high court of justice.”

    And then there are the words of Golda Meir when Pius XII died in 1958:

    “When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.”

    Sorry that the facts are not on your side when you decide you want to defame Pius XII as having turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, a.hole. I’d suggest that you instead turn your invective on FDR, who would do nothing to aid Jewish immigration to America during the lead-up to WWII and who would not even authorize the bombing of the railroad tracks to Auschwitz when confronted with evidence of what was happening there — he had a great deal more power to help the Jews during the Holocaust, and he did fail to use that power to stop one of the two gravest evils of the 20th century.

  32. MJ says:

    Schmucky – you already tried that bankrupt argument earlier and FAILED. Can’t come up with anything else?

    And just and FYI – I’m not a.price.

  33. John Manifold says:

    Moose shows no talent at persuasion, should log off, reload, grow up and read some good books.

  34. MJ says:

    As for Pope Pius XII just like FDR and many other leaders,he could have done more but he didn’t. Do me a favor, Schmucky, leave Jewish history and what how we feel about the Holocaust to my people and I won’t talk about the murderous crusades.

  35. No, MJ — it remains true. It is why I don’t bother defending my professional integrity from you — you clearly lack the brains and the moral standing to pass judgment.

    And as a student of History, I felt the need to correct a.hole on the historical record of the Holocaust.

    Now isn’t it time for you to go sodomize the cat or something?

  36. MJ says:

    Schmucky, you’re so brave with your homophobic comments. Did that make you feel like a real man? I bet it did. And you call yourself an educator. Bullshit! You’re a bigot and you’ve been exposed as a bigot and intolerant of any other religion than your own – you’re Jerry Falwell reincarnate! And reading Dick and Jane books all of your life doesn’t make you a student of history – it makes you a Texan.

    Take this as a warning – we do not tolerate homophobic or racist comments directed towards anyone on this blog. Do it again and you will find out the penalty.

  37. No homophobic comment made or intended — well, at least not outside your warped and hate-filled imagination.

  38. MJ says:

    Bye-bye Greg

  39. I’ll be back, MJ.

  40. MJ says:

    Doubtful

  41. a.price says:

    LOVE my new nickname. Im gonna use when i really wanna say something mean spirited from now on.

    What you failed to mention (in order to prove your tea-bag point) is that the ‘help” the church provided was largely kept secret. The saved a few friends of Bishops but didn’t want anyone, ESPECIALLY the Flock to know they disagreed with genocide. They didn’t have a whole lot of influence in mostly Protestant Germany, but many other countries inhabited by Catholic willing executioners (people of Europe who let it happen) The Pope could have used his power to decree that Jews were protected….or could it have been the holiest man on earth was afraid God wouldn’t protect him from Hitler… in andy case PiusXII, like like FDR, he failed to act and my family is smaller because of it.
    Ironically if PiusXII HAD denounced HItler, we wouldn’t have a pope today who was a member of the Nazi youth.