Comments on: Veto on Arizona Bills http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:01:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: deadcenter http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-24052 deadcenter Fri, 30 May 2008 05:14:43 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-24052 Part of the reason for vetoing the good for life permit may be the simple fact that with its five year renewal requirement it's a revenue generator in a state that is always looking for revenue. Part of the reason for vetoing the good for life permit may be the simple fact that with its five year renewal requirement it’s a revenue generator in a state that is always looking for revenue.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23977 Sebastian Thu, 29 May 2008 00:24:46 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23977 Dustin.... See Dave Hardy's update from Joe Olsen. Generally speaking, there's a self-defense exception in common law, even if it's not in statute. Dustin…. See Dave Hardy’s update from Joe Olsen. Generally speaking, there’s a self-defense exception in common law, even if it’s not in statute.

]]> By: Gregory Morris http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23975 Gregory Morris Wed, 28 May 2008 23:57:28 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23975 I've been in an <a href="http://www.gregandbeth.com/blog/index.php?action=view&id=249" rel="nofollow">extremely similar situation.</a> Granted, you could just say that I was open carrying (I was) but I <i>intentionally</i> showed him that I was armed only after he refused to back down given our verbal exchange. I'd hate to see a law that would legalize "brandishing" over minor matters, but there are situations where moving from "concealed" to "open" is a good idea. I’ve been in an extremely similar situation. Granted, you could just say that I was open carrying (I was) but I intentionally showed him that I was armed only after he refused to back down given our verbal exchange.

I’d hate to see a law that would legalize “brandishing” over minor matters, but there are situations where moving from “concealed” to “open” is a good idea.

]]> By: Dustin http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23970 Dustin Wed, 28 May 2008 22:51:02 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23970 The applicable statute is in <a href="http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01203.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS" rel="nofollow">13-1203 A2</a>"Assault: Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury" & <a href="http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01204.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS" rel="nofollow">13-1204 A2</a> Aggravated Assault:"2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument." "B. Except pursuant to subsections C and D of this section, aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 or paragraph 9, subdivision (a) of this section is a class 3 felony except if the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case it is a class 2 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01." So in summary, you can be charged & convicted of a Class 2 or 3 felony of Agravated assault in Arizona for simply "brandishing" a deadly weapon causing a thug to have "reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury" - no exception is listed for brandishing a deadly weapon in self defense. I know of a case where an elderly gentleman simply moved his handgun from a concealed location in his vehicle onto his dashboard to scare away a car of thugs who were attempting to drive him off the road which did scare them away, and he was charged with agravated assault. I'm trying to find the specifics of that story, will post it when I find it. The applicable statute is in 13-1203 A2“Assault: Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury” & 13-1204 A2 Aggravated Assault:”2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” “B. Except pursuant to subsections C and D of this section, aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 or paragraph 9, subdivision (a) of this section is a class 3 felony except if the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case it is a class 2 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01.”
So in summary, you can be charged & convicted of a Class 2 or 3 felony of Agravated assault in Arizona for simply “brandishing” a deadly weapon causing a thug to have “reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury” – no exception is listed for brandishing a deadly weapon in self defense. I know of a case where an elderly gentleman simply moved his handgun from a concealed location in his vehicle onto his dashboard to scare away a car of thugs who were attempting to drive him off the road which did scare them away, and he was charged with agravated assault. I’m trying to find the specifics of that story, will post it when I find it.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23957 Sebastian Wed, 28 May 2008 21:12:20 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23957 What kind of situations do you mean? What kind of situations do you mean?

]]> By: BC http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23955 BC Wed, 28 May 2008 21:05:49 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23955 Disagree completely with you, Sebastian. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of a situation where the <i>threat</i> of lethal force would be reasonable even though the <i>use</i> of lethal force would not. In such situations, there shouldn't be criminal liability for brandishing, any more than in a shots-fired self-defense situation there should be criminal liability for battery or homicide. Disagree completely with you, Sebastian. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to think of a situation where the threat of lethal force would be reasonable even though the use of lethal force would not. In such situations, there shouldn’t be criminal liability for brandishing, any more than in a shots-fired self-defense situation there should be criminal liability for battery or homicide.

]]> By: Robb Allen http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23948 Robb Allen Wed, 28 May 2008 19:58:24 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23948 Ah, I appear to be the one with a misunderstanding. I guess it never really hurts to do a little digging, eh? I sit corrected! Ah, I appear to be the one with a misunderstanding. I guess it never really hurts to do a little digging, eh?

I sit corrected!

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23947 Sebastian Wed, 28 May 2008 19:17:59 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23947 I've added an update. I’ve added an update.

]]> By: Robb Allen http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23946 Robb Allen Wed, 28 May 2008 19:16:51 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23946 Sebastian, I think I'm correct here as Greg and Dustin have chimed in. Here's the scenario - I'm walking to church to donate canned goods to orphans. Joe Thug jumps out from behind a bush and threatens to stab me. I drop the green beans and cranberry sauce, pull my Glock 7 (You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!) and, upon seeing I'm armed, he turns and flees. According to AZ law, I'm a criminal for brandishing. That's what the law was supposed to fix. Sebastian, I think I’m correct here as Greg and Dustin have chimed in.

Here’s the scenario – I’m walking to church to donate canned goods to orphans. Joe Thug jumps out from behind a bush and threatens to stab me. I drop the green beans and cranberry sauce, pull my Glock 7 (You know what that is? It’s a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn’t show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!) and, upon seeing I’m armed, he turns and flees.

According to AZ law, I’m a criminal for brandishing.

That’s what the law was supposed to fix.

]]> By: Dustin http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/28/veto-on-arizona-bills/#comment-23945 Dustin Wed, 28 May 2008 19:04:26 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3567#comment-23945 This law would not have forced anyone to change their tactics. It simply would have removed regulation that has unfairly punished law abiding citizens in Arizona in the past who were simply denfending themselves against thugs by "brandishing" their weapon (which sent the assailants running without the need to pull the trigger) & were then sent to jail on brandishing & assault with a deadly weapon charges. In Arizona if you display your concealed weapon in any way but don't shoot your asailant you can be sent to jail on these charges. Citizens should be free to display their weapon in cases where an asailant is "using or attempting to use unlawful physical force" without being forced to pull the trigger, if the assailant halts the attack at the first sight of the weapon. This law would not have forced anyone to change their tactics. It simply would have removed regulation that has unfairly punished law abiding citizens in Arizona in the past who were simply denfending themselves against thugs by “brandishing” their weapon (which sent the assailants running without the need to pull the trigger) & were then sent to jail on brandishing & assault with a deadly weapon charges. In Arizona if you display your concealed weapon in any way but don’t shoot your asailant you can be sent to jail on these charges. Citizens should be free to display their weapon in cases where an asailant is “using or attempting to use unlawful physical force” without being forced to pull the trigger, if the assailant halts the attack at the first sight of the weapon.

]]>