search
top

Arizona Has Fixed It’s Restaurant Carry Problem

Both Danno and Dustin are reporting.  Very good.  I found that at the NRA Convention, being on foot, it was a real pain in the ass to deal with.  Can we get this fixed in North Carolina before Charlotte?

UPDATE: Parking lot carry was signed as well.

8 Responses to “Arizona Has Fixed It’s Restaurant Carry Problem”

  1. Harvey says:

    Good luck with Charlotte. NC, although a ccw issuing state, NC places so many restrictions on carrying it’s ridicules. For example, a business owner who obtains a carry license because he transports large sums of cash to the bank can’t carry concealed there. All transfers of handguns, not only purchases, must be via a permit issued at the discretion of the local sheriff. The list of “off limits” is one of the largest in the country. If the restaurant lobby orders a status quo, that’s what will happen, regardless of what the people want.

  2. Dustin says:

    Wow – sounds miserable for gun owners in Charlotte. I’ll probably need to read an entire book just to figure out where I can & can not protect myself if I am able to fly to the Charlotte NRA convention.

  3. Xrlq says:

    Yup. On the bright side, Governor Perdue (whose name is French for “lost,” but who is not to be confused with the other Carolina’s governor, who actually went missing for a week) has a pretty good record on guns, so in the unlikely event the General Assembly passes any decent reforms, she’ll likely sign them.

  4. R. Franz says:

    The situation in AZ is alot further from being fixed than it would have been if it wasn’t for the sudden butting in of the Never Refuse Abatement crew from Fairfax. For the first time in AZ history, we now have a codified abridgement of our right to bear arms, coupled with the creation of a system of privilege in its place, which of course, grants more liberty and less penalties for non arizona citizens.

    Great.

    At least they bought everyone pizza before they sold us all out.

  5. Sebastian says:

    R. Franz:

    What is this codified abridgment of which you speak?

  6. R. Franz says:

    The original bill, as well as the bill that was passed last year, but vetoed (which would indicate was an easy pass this year, and was unlikely to get vetoed with a new governor, and significant increase in republican seats in both houses) simply removed the language prohibiting possession of firearms based on the license held by the premises, effectively restoring the civil right to self defense, and created a sign standard to opt out (as any private property owner is allowed to do, on any private property). The NRA offered an senate amendment to the bill, removing the right to carry and replacing it with a CCW concealed carry only privilege, kept the language making it a crime to carry a firearm in a licensed premises, with the one exception, increasing the penalty for carry, and shifted the responsibility in opt out situations to the firearm owner (ie, if the sign falls down, you are still committing a crime, as it is your responsibility to determine if the owner allows firearms) for Arizona CCW holders, though out of state Permit holders are not responsible for determining if the premises has opted out, and face no additional penalties.

    This might sound similar to steps taken in many other states, but Arizona is primarily a right to carry state, and a significant point of debate in passing the 1994 CCW law was that the legislature was worried that it would be used as a vehicle of privilege, and great steps were taken to ensure that the permit would grant no additional privileges, or be used to limit open carry. The law was only passed when everyone was certain that CCW was only an extension of legal open carry, and granted no additional liberties. This is the first exception that has been allowed, and the first instance of a CCW only privilege in the state of AZ. Its a poor presidence, and a poor bill.

    AZCDL, the original group that asked for the bill, (and the most successful civil rights organization in the US, today) made a mistake in continuing to support the bill in the senate after the amendment was added, but they were hopeful that it would be stripped back out in the house. Unfortunately that did not happen, and now we have created three classes of firearms owners, with three sets of rights, Lowly citizens, AZ CCW Holders, and Out of state Permit Holders.

    Like i said, at least the NRA bought everyone pizza on the last day of session, that seems to be the majority of good that my dues went towards, this year.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Thanks for the clarification. I will have to look into this in more detail before saying anything more.

  8. Sebastian says:

    Yeah, that seems to be the case. I will see if I can find out why that was pushed over just repealing the prohibition.

    From my reading of the statute, they created an affirmative defense for a) if the sign had fallen down b) the person is not a resident of AZ or c) the sign was new (within the last 30 days).

    An affirmative defense is a legitimate exception to it being a “crime” but it means you have to admit to otherwise violating the statute in question before you can assert the defense. But how an affirmative defense works depends on the jurisdiction. I’m not sure how it works in AZ.

    There’s no strict requirement that you ask about whether a premises is posted first, though it does make an exception for going in to ask while armed. It doesn’t treat non-residents any differently in this regard, as being a non-resident is just another affirmative defense you can raise.

    Either way, I’ll see if I can get some history on this to find out why the better option of just eliminating the firearms language in the AZ liquor control laws wasn’t pursued.

top