Law Allowing Guns in Restaurants Takes Effect Wednesday

[Beowulf]

because of stringent requirement and laws involved in CCW process. It's generally rigorous in all states. In some states, CCW permit are relatively easy to obtain but if it's that "too easy", that CCW permit will most likely not be recognized and honored in other state. My permits are recognized by 33 states. Again - it varies among states... so complex that most CCW holders choose NOT to carry it.


Chance is - they probably don't have CCW permit but then.... we don't know since you never asked.


It is ILLEGAL and you MUST IMMEDIATELY report it to police. He will be charged with aggravated assault with weapon and probably more. a CCW holder doing this is treated more harshly than a thug with illegal firearm.

Notice this - I've never said ALL (as in 100%) CCW holders are law-abiding type but like cops, there are a tiny percentage of those who are irresponsible and bad.

curious - where did he do this to you?


yes. that is true. but then.... I'm much more concerned about idiot drivers than people carrying guns. I'm more likely to get killed by an idiot driver than a thug or an idiot gun owner. Human elements on anything makes me nervous too. Subway or bus driven by sleepy/distracted driver. Surgery performed by drunk surgeon. Class taught by pedophile. Arrested performed by aggressive and abusive officers. so on...

All plausible reasoning, but were our Founding Fathers thinking of handguns for the militia? It wouldbe like bringing knives to gunfights, lol.
It happened last year at the Oktoberfest. This guy (who was not drunk, btw) was getting all over a drunk female friend of mine and I could have made a more diplomatic statement to him, lol. Someone told me he had a permit to carry a gun, and I just let it slide.

 

[Jiro]

All plausible reasoning, but were our Founding Fathers thinking of handguns for the militia? It wouldbe like bringing knives to gunfights, lol.
It happened last year at the Oktoberfest. This guy (who was not drunk, btw) was getting all over a drunk female friend of mine and I could have made a more diplomatic statement to him, lol. Someone told me he had a permit to carry a gun, and I just let it slide.

ABSOLUTELY NOT - under NO CIRCUMSTANCE you are to let it slide. I have ZERO TOLERANCE to those morons. But then - you don't really know if he has CCW permit. Just cuz somebody told you he has it doesn't really mean he has it. He probably said that lie to you to get him off the hook.

You really should have reported this incident to police.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

They had flintlock pistols back then during the revolutionary war... then handheld revolvers about 3 to 5 decades before the Civil War.

 

[deafskeptic]

We are talking about responsibility, not the number of times a CCW carrier has used their gun.

I haven't made any statements that require the support of stories.:shrug: It is a well known fact that accidents with firearms do occur. Those accidents can occur in a public place. It is also a well known fact that alcohol lowers inhibitions, restricts judgement, and increases anger. Those are 3 qualities that could be extremely dangerous when one has a gun in their pocket.

Hence why I'm not comfortable with this law.

 

[Jiro]

I tried to search for CCW statistic and this came up in my search - a forum called DemocraticUnderground.com

Link

Crime statistics for concealed carry permit holders? Does anyone know where I can get statistics on the number of crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders?

some interesting answers....

My gut tells me that CCW permit holders are probably among the most law-abiding in the country. I'd like to find some data to support this.

I can't find the article right now, but about three weeks ago there was a report from Texas or Flroida (?) I believe that indicated that CC permit holders were something like 3 to 5 tims LESS likely to be involve in any criminal activity that the average citizen of the same age.

Sorry I can't find the source now.

States with "discretionary issue" (i.e., allowing local sheriffs or county boards to set arbitrary standards to keep guns out of the wrong (color) hands, or reward contributions to the sheriff's political campaign) are now in the minority; most states have a state department of licensing, even if your local CLEO handles the paperwork.

I do know that at least Florida and Texas keep data on revocations and the cause, and IIRC both showed fewer violent felonies among CHL holders than even police officers in the aggregate, but I don't have a link.

Gun Control

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

Thanks, pipoman! That goes a long way to dispelling all the "wild west shootout" scenarios the doomsayers predicted.

Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - June 30, 2008

Concealed Weapon Summary Report - Division of Licensing, DOACS

Check the chart for the Licenses Revoked section.

i have a coworker who is alive today because a permitted person ran up and shot a person who was wrestling with her (after she stopped him for committing armed robbery) and who had gotten her gun out of its holster (note that statsitically speaking , when a cop is disarmed by a person, 80%+ of the time, the gun will be fired at them).

i deal with people in an area that has a VERY high percentage of people who have CCW's in a state that is "shall issue".

i can state from n=thousands that i have never arrested any CCW person for any crime involving their firearm.

i occasionally arrest a person with a CCW who has his gun on him. i arrested a person for a misdemeanor warrant about 5 years ago that was carrying his firearm.

but the offense was not firearms related.

if there is any group that is incredibly law abiding ime it is CCW holders.

another coworker of mine was shot and killed. THREE citizens at the scene i interviewed had guns and permits. unfortunately none were able to save his life, but based on EVIDENCE (not feelings) i am happy to know there are lawfully armed citizenry out there.

"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of 2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those crimes involved the use of a firearm. "

"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4 percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..

between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses were revoked for any reason

in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed weapon permits

since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.

between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.

between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999, the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.


The truth shouldn't come as a surprise either.
This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many states:
(specifically Tennessee in the example)

They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."


Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may be inclined to lead to trouble.

A CHL is not a "license to kill." It is a license to carry a firearm for lawful purposes; it does not exempt you from use-of-force laws, MSM fearmongering to the contrary. Nor is it about "feeling super-macho" (if it were, you'd have a hard time explaining all those women who have obtained CHL's, including my wife, and the woman who stopped the Colorado church shooter).

FWIW, to obtain a CHL, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, a mental-health records check, had my fingerprints run by the FBI (clean), took a class on self-defense law using a state-issued curriculum, passed a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrated competence with a handgun on a range (live fire). It cost a lot of money, a lot of time off work, and a lot of red tape that only the hyper-law-abiding would bother with.

I'm 37 and have never even had a speeding ticket, for pete's sake, nor have I ever participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes. I think your stereotype of CHL holders as Rambo wannabes would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

My wife and I both carry.

Speaking only for myself, I know that if I am ever involved in ANY kind of altercation, the mere fact that I have a concealed carry permit, and a firearm on my person, means I will likely be held to a higher standard than your average joe-on-the-street during any investigation, grand jury, trial, or media coverage that results.

The State can determine that I owned my pistols.
My fingerprints are on file with the State, and the FBI.
State police know immediately if they run my plates or drivers license, that I have a permit for concealed carry.

As a gun owner, and a concealed carry advocate, I can say with confidence, you don't know me. You don't understand my motivations. I doubt you are even interested in learning more. Since I take responsibility for my safety, and the safety of people around me, you make some pretty derogatory assumptions about me. That's just bigotry of another stripe. Brave new century I guess. Pick a small segment of society and shit all over them, free and clear, as long as it's not based on skin color or sexual orientation.

Pardon me for fulfilling what I see as my civic and constitutional duty.

Its funny
how the "un-armed" people are more confrontational than the "armed" people???? lol.

Informally, I can tell you from experience. I have been shooting since age 10 - I learned in the Cub Scouts. I have owned several hundred guns, mostly handguns and miliraty surplus rifles, over the last 45 years. I own 14 handguns at the present time.
I have enjoyed shooting for many years.
My understanding is that not many police officers are "gun nuts", and many shoot only when necessary to qualify as their depertment requires.

Many people who shoot "for fun" are much more skilled in shooting and general gun use and gun handling than are a large percentage of police officers.

The anti-gun cultists are too bust re-hashing their store of false information to be bothered with "facts". They are in large numbers totally ignorant of any aspect of firearms, and have no desire to learn.

They believe they are right, or they don't and just want to be in control. I find many of them are quite closed minded, fascistic individuals, and I believe many of them are afraid of their own uncontrolable rage and hatred. They are sick individuals, and cannot be taken seriously.

mark

Florida Concealed Carry Licensees Do Not Commit Crimes

Pop. - 13,277,000 Floridians Who Own Guns (Percent) All -- 62.7% Male -- 68.8% Female -- 57.3% Floridians Who Own Guns (Number): 8,325,000 Permits issued: 204,108 Permits Revoked Due To Crime: 17 (0.008%)

The latest report from the Florida Department of State, covering a 6-year, 4-month period from 10/01/87 (start-up date) through 02/28/94, shows that 204,108 CCW permits have been issued -- 69% new permits; 31% permit renewals. Only one-quarter of 1% of permit applications have been rejected due to an applicant's criminal history; two-tenths of 1% have been rejected due to an "incomplete application." One hundred eighty-seven (0.1%) permits have been revoked because the permittee committed some kind of crime, though not necessarily a gun-related or violent crime, after permit issuance. After receiving permits, only 17 (0.008%) individuals committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which firearms were present, though not necessarily used. By contrast, in 1992 there were about 46,000 gun-related violent crimes (assaults, robberies, homicides and rapes) in Florida, based upon FBI Uniform Crime Reports supplementary reports and reported crime totals.fla_model

Official Florida site: Summary Report October 1, 1987 - June 30, 2008:
Concealed Weapon Summary Report - Division of Licensing, DOACS

*it's a pix of a grave saying "Here's lies a Disruptor. He disrupted..... poorly"

 

[Jiro]

and more....

I am thoroughly heartened by the cited data presented in this thread!
Why is it that, when confronted with data that suggests that CCW holders engage in less crime than the general public and that carrying a handgun can deter crime, those emotionally attached to their belief in gun control suddenly get quiet?

My wife was adamantly anti-gun. Although I take my guns to the range and sometimes bring my grown son, she had steadfastly chosen to hold to her anti-gun stance even when inundated with data showing all her pre-conceived notions to be incorrect. She even said that here response to guns is emotional and not based on reason or logic. However, after accepting that I have a CCW and sometimes carry, and knowing that I am an unaggressive, calm and mild individual, she has softened her stance. She now, at least, will listen when I present her with data contrary to her 'beliefs.' Her blinders are now off and she won't say "don't confuse the issue with facts."

There are some 200 million guns out there in the USA. A local reporter went downtown, made some contacts, and had the option to buy, illegally, any handgun he wanted. Bad guys can do the same. Will they follow any law that prohibits handgun ownership or use? Not a chance. Those anti-gun laws only affect law-abiding people like me. The goons get guns and we can't. Does that make sense?

I am less macho when I carry. My tendency to avoid confrontation is heightened by my knowledge of gun use and gun ownership. I know the consequences for the goon, my family and me. I know that, even in a justified shooting when my family, friends or I am threatened with bodily injury or death, the financial and emotional costs will be great. That just make me more judicious in confrontational situations.

I am not a one issue voter, so I will vote for Obama because he will work toward my goals of peace, healthy environment, democratic and Democratic ideals even if he is anti-gun. However, if Obama and his handlers don't want to sabotage his own candidacy and lose the independents, they should support gun ownership and reject any inkling of anti-gun attitudes. The neocons will not believe that he is pro-gun, but he doesn't have their vote regardless. However, many independents will turn his way and many gun-owning progressives like me will back him wholeheartedly.

Ron

I believe that life experience helps determine your pro or anti-gun stance. Many anti-gun people live in violent cities where few people legally own weapons and have little experience with honest gun owners. They may well have witnessed gun violence or have had personal knowledge of people who were victims.

I also noticed that when I first started carrying a firearm concealed, I lost the macho attitude. "Packing heat" is a very serious decision. I go out of my way to avoid confrontation. The last thing I would ever want to do is to use the weapon I have hidden on my person. I believe I'm more polite and considerate now that I have a permit. Perhaps there is more truth than most realize in the statement "An armed society is a polite society". Most of the people I know who carry concealed have expressed the same view. Perhaps that's why you rarely read of legally carried weapons being used.

It's probably impossible but might be worth the effort to take your wife to the range. Just invite her to watch and meet the other shooters. If she isn't totally turned off by the experience, ask if she would like to try a few shots. Don't start off with a powerful handgun. If you don't own one, buy or borrow a .22 caliber weapon like the Ruger target .22. A fairly heavy .38 special revolver is another choice because the recoil is manageable for a new shooter. (If you do buy a firearm for her to try, the Ruger might be the best choice. If she doesn't enjoy shooting you can still use it as an excellent inexpensive firearm to improve your shooting. The weapon is extremely accurate and the .22 caliber ammo will not break your bank account.

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAFamily?type=Pistol&subt...

Many women find shooting a pleasurable sport once they try it. Most of the women I've taken to the range turned out to be very good shooters mainly because they listen and learn without the preconceived notions that men have acquired from watching too many action films. If you're lucky your wife may discover she likes shooting. It could turn into a hobby for both of you. Of course, the skill she learns may save her life or yours some day.

 

[Jiro]

CCW in USA (wikipedia)

Don Kates has observed:

"Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

[...]

"Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal."[45]

Don Kates' background

Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist associated with the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, California. He is co-author of Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control (Prometheus, 2001). As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.

Don B. Kates, Jr., attended Reed College and Yale Law School. During the Civil rights movement, he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler. Thereafter, he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure at Saint Louis University School of Law, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law, teaches, and writes on criminology. He is editor of Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy (San Francisco: 1984, Pacific Research Institute) and the Winter 1986 issue of Law & Contemporary Problems. He is author of the entry on the Second Amendment in M. Levy & K. Karst, The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution; "Firearms and Violence: Old Premises, Current Evidence," in T. Gurr (ed.), Violence in America (1989); and "Precautionary Handgun Ownership: Reasonable Choice or Dangerous Delusion," B. Danto (ed.), Gun Control and Criminal Homicide, forthcoming (1990).

 

[Jiro]

Arizona CCW Permit Requirement

CCW Eligibility
Applicants must:

* be a resident of this state or a United States citizen;
* be twenty-one years of age or older;
* not be under indictment for a felony offense;
* not be convicted of a felony offense, unless: the conviction has been expunged, set aside, vacated or pardoned, or the individuals civil rights must be restored AND the individual must not be a prohibited possessor under state or federal law.

* not suffer from mental illness and been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution;

* not be unlawfully present in the United States;

* satisfactorily complete a firearms safety training program approved by the department of public safety pursuant to ARS §13-3112.O.

State Prohibitors

ARS§13-3101(6) - Prohibited possessor



means any person -

* who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose court ordered treatment has not been terminated by a court order;

* who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony or who has been adjudicated delinquent and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored;

* who is at the time of possession serving a term of imprisonment in any correctional facility or detention facility;

* who is at the time of possession serving a term of probation pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense as defined in section 13-3601 or a felony offense, parole, community supervision, work furlough, home arrest or release on any other basis or who is serving a term of probation or parole pursuant to the interstate compact under title 31, chapter 3, article 4;
* who is an undocumented alien or a nonimmigrant alien traveling with or without documentation in this state for business or pleasure or who is studying in this state and who maintains a foreign residence abroad. This subdivision does not apply to:

(i) Nonimmigrant aliens who possess a valid hunting license or permit that is lawfully issued by a state in the United States.

(ii) Nonimmigrant aliens who enter the United States to participate in a competitive target shooting event or to display firearms at a sports or hunting trade show that is sponsored by a national, state or local firearms trade organization devoted to the competitive use or other sporting use of firearms.

(iii) Certain diplomats.

(iv) Officials of foreign governments or distinguished foreign visitors who are designated by the United States Department of State.

(v) Persons who have received a waiver from the United States Attorney General.

Federal Prohibitors

United States Code, Title 18, Section 922(d) states “it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person –

* is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year:

* is a fugitive of justice;

* is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act (21 United States Code 802)

* has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

* who, being an alien-
+ is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
+ except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 United States Code 1101(a)(26)).
* who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

* who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

* is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that –
+ was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
+ expected to cause bodily injury;
+ includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
+ by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

* has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.



Initial and renewal concealed weapons permit applications are processed by Department of Public Safety Criminal Records Specialists. The application data is entered into our CCW database. Background criminal history checks are performed utilizing several systems:

- Arizona Criminal Justice Information System (ACJIS)

- National Crime Information Center (NCIC)

- Arizona Crime information Center (ACIC)

- National Instant Background Check System (NICS)

- Interstate Identification Index (III)

- Automatic Fingerprint Information System (AFIS)

- Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)



Our policy is to deny a concealed weapons permit to an applicant due to any disqualifiers in accordance to U.S. Federal 18 U.S.C. § 922 and Arizona State ARS §13-3112, §13-3101(6).

Applicants must satisfactorily complete a DPS approved CCW Training Program (8 hours). Permit training must take place within Arizona. Applicants trained outside of Arizona are subject to suspension or revocation, as well as the instructor and organization. Certain law enforcement officers and county detention officers are exempt from the initial training.

Concealed weapons permits may be renewed every four or five years (permits issued after August 11, 2005 are valid for five years). See renewal procedure.

Procedure

New Permit:

1. Once you have determined that you are qualified to obtain a concealed weapon permit, locate an organization that provides an approved CCW training course. The course is a minimum of 8 hours in length and is taught by a CWPU authorized instructor. You must qualify with a handgun firing live ammunition.

2. Upon completion of the course, the instructor will provide you with an application, two fingerprint cards and a return envelope. Ensure that the instructor certifies the training on the application to include the Training Program Number, the Training Instructor Number and the Training Organization Number. An organizational stamp or seal must also be affixed.

3. You must be fingerprinted utilizing the "Applicant" fingerprint cards provided by the instructor. The organization may offer fingerprinting services or you may be required to locate a provider. Some police agencies provide this service for a small fee (DPS does not). Call your local police agencies for inquiries. Regardless of who completes the fingerprint process for you, the prints must be clear, distinct and classifiable. Do not place tape over the top of the prints!

4. Using the return envelope provided, send the completed application, two complete sets of fingerprints, and the appropriate fee in the form of a money order, cashier's or certified check (payable to the AZ DPS) to the CWPU. For a current list of fees click on "Fee Schedule" located at the top left portion of this page. Fees are non-refundable.


Expired Permit:

If an 'expired permit issued by the Department' is presented as proof that the individual has previously attended the required firearms-safety training program, the 'permit' they are presenting must be in good standing to be eligible as proof. Revoked permits will not be considered.

The applicant must:

* complete and submit an original Concealed Weapons Permit application
* submit two sets of classifiable fingerprints utilizing CWPU approved applicant fingerprint cards
* submit your expired Arizona Concealed Weapons Permit card

* submit the applicable fee required to obtain a NEW permit

Applicants may request the new permit application and applicant fingerprint cards by contacting the Concealed Weapons Permit Unit.

This will NOT be considered a 'renewal' process. The applicant must submit the fee required to obtain a new permit. Fees are non-refundable.


Note:

Persons who were born outside of the United States or one of its territories must send a copy of proof of citizenship or alien status. Any of the following documents are acceptable:

* Certificate of Naturalization
* Resident Alien Card
* Record of Birth Abroad to US citizens
* Record of Birth Abroad to Armed Forces Personnel
* US Passport

Applications with errors or containing incomplete information will be returned for correction.

Allow 75 days for the processing your application and the delivery of your permit. Please do not call DPS regarding the status of your application. If you have not received your permit or notification regarding your application after this time frame contact our staff.

Once you have received your permit, inspect it for errors. If you find an error, return the permit along with a completed copy of the CWPU "Change, Error or Non-Receipt of Permit Form" available under printable forms on this web page.

Note:
* All changes of address and phone numbers must be reported in writing to the CWPU within 10 days of the change. Utilize the 'Change, Error or Non-Receipt of Permit Form' available under printable forms on this web page.

* All training for an AZ CCW permit MUST be conducted within the borders of the state of Arizona.

I guess AZ's CCW gun law is not really an idiotic one as claimed by Boult after all!

 

[Boult]

Jiro, your last post is not about LAW but requirement to acquire a CCW Permit.

This thread is about allowing those gun holder who have CCW permit to walk into a restaurants (that have a bar or sell boozes), of course, they can't consume booze at all if inside those newly permitted place of business as of today and forward. That's what the law that went into effect today is about. I found this new law idiotic because it is like walking into a hornet nest with hidden gun!

Since lately, AZ have allowed those with CCW permit to walk into McDonald's (since it is a family restaurant) but they don't serve boozes! even those restaurants that don't have a BAR or SELL boozes allowed those CCW permit holders. The new law is about allowing those permit holder to sit inside a restaurant that HAVE a bar.

Gun toters get cold shoulder | www.azstarnet.com ®

ABOUT THE LAW
The law — Arizona Revised Statutes Section 4-229 — allows anyone with a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon to bring the weapon into a bar or restaurant where beer, wine or liquor is sold.
Other provisions:
• Business owners may post "no weapons" signs — specifically described in the law — if they don't want their patrons to be armed.
• Anyone who is armed is not permitted to drink.
• Several situations form an "affirmative defense" to an alleged violation of the law, including cases where a person was not informed of the no-firearm notice; the notice had fallen down; the person was not an Arizona resident at the time of the violation; or when the notice had not been up at least 30 days before the violation.
• The law makes exceptions for those carrying guns if they enter a bar to seek emergency aid or to determine whether a no-guns sign has been posted.

 

[Boult]

Anyway, in this article, there's comment section and I found this;

re: after all, as a CCW holder I'm certified law-abiding. <<

Certified law abiding? Hardly.

Authoritative statistics regarding crimes committed by CCW permit holders are hard to come by, although that doesn't seem to stop people from idle (and often preposterous) speculation. Florida issues summary reports that include permits issued, denied and revoked for cause.

In Florida, of 1,550,784 permit applications since 1987, 3,647 were rejected for criminal activity. Of 1,520,944 actually issued since 1987, 4,317 were revoked for crimes committed after the permit was issued including 167 where a firearm was used in the commission of the crime.

source: Florida Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapon Summary Report - Division of Licensing, DOACS

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, your last post is not about LAW but requirement to acquire a CCW Permit.

This thread is about allowing those gun holder who have CCW permit to walk into a restaurants (that have a bar or sell boozes), of course, they can't consume booze at all if inside those newly permitted place of business as of today and forward. That's what the law that went into effect today is about. I found this new law idiotic because it is like walking into a hornet nest with hidden gun!

Since lately, AZ have allowed those with CCW permit to walk into McDonald's (since it is a family restaurant) but they don't serve boozes! even those restaurants that don't have a BAR or SELL boozes allowed those CCW permit holders. The new law is about allowing those permit holder to sit inside a restaurant that HAVE a bar.

Gun toters get cold shoulder | www.azstarnet.com ®

ABOUT THE LAW
The law — Arizona Revised Statutes Section 4-229 — allows anyone with a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon to bring the weapon into a bar or restaurant where beer, wine or liquor is sold.
Other provisions:
• Business owners may post "no weapons" signs — specifically described in the law — if they don't want their patrons to be armed.
• Anyone who is armed is not permitted to drink.
• Several situations form an "affirmative defense" to an alleged violation of the law, including cases where a person was not informed of the no-firearm notice; the notice had fallen down; the person was not an Arizona resident at the time of the violation; or when the notice had not been up at least 30 days before the violation.
• The law makes exceptions for those carrying guns if they enter a bar to seek emergency aid or to determine whether a no-guns sign has been posted.

1. You should know what it takes to have a CCW permit. it's not that easy
2. Whether or not if it's legal to bring guns into bar, the law already existed prohibiting consumption of alcohol while armed
3. Do you really think the government would just allow this exception without any thought?
4. CCW holders are NOT to be confused with Joe the Average with gun at home

 

[Jiro]

Anyway, in this article, there's comment section and I found this;

re: after all, as a CCW holder I'm certified law-abiding. <<

Certified law abiding? Hardly.

Authoritative statistics regarding crimes committed by CCW permit holders are hard to come by, although that doesn't seem to stop people from idle (and often preposterous) speculation. Florida issues summary reports that include permits issued, denied and revoked for cause.

In Florida, of 1,550,784 permit applications since 1987, 3,647 were rejected for criminal activity. Of 1,520,944 actually issued since 1987, 4,317 were revoked for crimes committed after the permit was issued including 167 where a firearm was used in the commission of the crime.

source: Florida Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapon Summary Report - Division of Licensing, DOACS

certified law-abiding? that's a funny term! but I've shown enough posts to dispel the myth and stereotypes of CCW holder as a trigger-happy cowboy or a vigilante who thinks he's enforcing the law. CCW is NOT a license to kill nor a license to arrest or whatsoever. It simply means you are permitted to carry concealed weapon in public

 

[Boult]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

 

[jillio]

Sorry but I don't follow. Resorting to your classic argument style - obfuscation?

I've already proved that having CCW translates to a greater responsibility than non-CCW holders and I've already proved that CCW saves lives. You haven't been able to convince us otherwise since all of your examples & arguments are NON-RELATED to CCW.

No obfuscation. It isn't necessary.

You have proved nothing of the kind. You have posted stories from the media. They cannot generalize past the incident being reported. They certainly can't be used as proof that CCW are more responsible, nor that a CCW holder is more likely to intervene than not when a crime is being committed. There is research that addresses just these issues, but it is found in profession journals dealing with sociology and social psychology. News accounts of a particular incident is useless except to report that particular incident. One cannot assume correlation or cause and effect from a news report.

You also stated that CCW holders did not commit crimes, however, your post #105 states the opposite:

After receiving permits, only 17 (0.008%) individuals committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which firearms were present, though not necessarily used.

This is based on statistical data, which is more reliable than a news story. This is also only in one state, so the number would increase nationwide. The word only was used to minimize the fact that 17 individuals who applied for and received CCW's committed crimes where firearms were involved after receiving their CCW.

Since the topic involves the ability to carry a gun into a restaurant, my posts have been very much on topic. It doesn't matter whether it is under a CCW or not. Guns and alcohol do not make a good mix. You have yet to provide a viable or valid reason as to why anyone would need to take a gun into a restaurant.

I have question. Those carrying a gun with a CCW into a restaurant, under this law, are not allowed to consume alcohol. That means that the bartender must be aware so as not to serve them alcohol even if they request it, much the same as a bartender is responsible for checking ID's or cutting patrons off if they become too innebriated. If the gun is concealed, as per the permit, how is the bartender to know who is carrying a gun and who isn't? And don't tell me that CCW holders are so responsible that they would not even order a drink if they had their gun on them. People know that drunk driving is against the law, and still they do it.

 

[Lighthouse77]

I thought people carry guns to scare people, not to use it you know, "I got a gun and not afraid to use it, so don't mess with me"

 

[jillio]

1. You should know what it takes to have a CCW permit. it's not that easy
2. Whether or not if it's legal to bring guns into bar, the law already existed prohibiting consumption of alcohol while armed
3. Do you really think the government would just allow this exception without any thought?
4. CCW holders are NOT to be confused with Joe the Average with gun at home

The restriction on drinking while carrying a firearm is a revision, not a prior law.

 

[jillio]

1. You should know what it takes to have a CCW permit. it's not that easy
2. Whether or not if it's legal to bring guns into bar, the law already existed prohibiting consumption of alcohol while armed
The restriction on drinking while carrying a firearm is a revision, not a prior law.[COLOR="Red"][/COLOR]
3. Do you really think the government would just allow this exception without any thought?
4. CCW holders are NOT to be confused with Joe the Average with gun at home

Oh? How exactly is it that CCW holders are so far above average?

 

[yizuman]

I question anyone that wants to have a ban on handguns. Sounds like to me they're the ones that wants to commit a crime and not have to worry about legal, responsible citizens defending themselves with a handgun.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Lighthouse77]

If we are going to ban guns, I expect policemen should be banned from guns as well. they are human too so should we trust them with it if we don't trust the average citizens who have a gun permit?

 

[Jiro]

The restriction on drinking while carrying a firearm is a revision, not a prior law.

that law existed for a long time.