What Happened to Concealed Carry on Campus?

What exactly did the proposed law to allow concealed carry of firearms on college campuses in Arizona say and why did 6 Republican legislators vote against it and a Republican governor veto it?

Governor Brewer Signs New Firearms Laws

Here is a comprehensive list of the new firearms laws passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer along with an analysis of the ones with the greatest impact on existing Arizona laws.

Project Gunrunner - Congress Investigates BATFE

Here is the most up-to-date news of the Congressional investigation into BATFE "Project Gunrunner"...courtesy of Fox News.

House Bill Introduces National Right to Carry Act

In February 2011, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. For more details and a current status of this important law take a look at this article.

Today's Quote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety."

Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Recent Articles:

We are back after quite a long break…

May 16, 2013 AZ CCW Laws Comments Off

Hello to all of our readers!

After a long hiatus, we will be updating the site again.  Look for lots of new content to be added over the coming weeks.  We will also be updating older posts to reflect the current Arizona CCW laws.

Thanks for your patience.

Doug Little, Owner and Director of Training

Armed Personal Defense

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

What did the “Campus Concealed Carry” bill really say and why did the Governor veto it?

May 5, 2011 AZ CCW Laws, Campus Concealed Carry, Legal Issues Comments Off

Senate Bill 1467 was a very simply bill.  It would have simply amended the existing ARS statute 13-2911 with a single substantive paragraph.  The paragraph would have preserved the rights of the governing board of an educational institution to adopt rules to preserve public order on that institutions property which would govern the conduct of students, faculty, staff and visitors.  No changes there.  They could also still establish appropriate penalties for violation of those policies including suspension, expulsion and ejection from the property.

All the new law would have done would have been to make it impossible for the governing board to enforce a policy or rule that prohibits the lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a “Public Right-of-Way”.  Now, what does that mean really…

Under current law, let say you happened to be walking down University Drive in Tempe.  As soon as you cross Mill Avenue traveling east on University you are on campus.  If you happen to be carrying a lawfully owned, properly permitted concealed firearm, you are now violating ASU policy and can be ejected from campus or charged with criminal trespass or misconduct with a firearm or both.  You are now a criminal.  Your crime…walking down a ‘public right-of-way’ in the City of Tempe.  The same thing applies if you happen to be driving in a car or riding a bus.

University Drive, Veteran’s Way and McAllister Avenue are all major thoroughfares through the City of Tempe that happen to go directly through the ASU Campus.  Plus there are dozens of other streets, Forest Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, 6th Street, 7th Street, all of which have businesses, restaurants and shops, all of which are now “off limits” to anyone carrying a lawfully concealed firearm.

Notice that I used the word ‘lawfully’.  Since most criminals intent on some type of mayhem are not particularly picky about breaking the law (it kind of goes with the territory for criminals), I would hazard a guess that the University policy against concealed carry on campus won’t bother or deter them.  Students, Faculty, Staff and Visitors may need to conduct necessary business on campus and to avoid problems with the policy may choose to remain unarmed.  This creates a great environment if you are a criminal.  As a criminal, you stand a good chance that few if any of the victims you might find on a college campus will be in a position to defend themselves.

While the law passed through the Legislature by a comfortable margin, the primary opposition came from the Democrat members of both the House and Senate.  In the House, 6 Republicans voted with the Democrats on this law.  Those six were:  Kate Brophy McGee, District 11; Heather Carter, District 7; Rick Gray, District 9; Russ Jones, District 24; Bob Robson, District 20; and Michelle Ugenti, District 8.  That Representative Ugenti voted against this was a bit of a surprise since during her campaign her slogan was “the Republican Party meets the Tea Party”.  Last time I checked, the Tea Party did not support restricting individual rights, particularly with respect to firearms.

The vote in the Senate was also largely along party lines with seven Democrats voting against the bill.  Interestingly, Democrat Senators Aboud and Sinema did not vote on this one.

University administrators lobbied hard against this one using the same tired arguments.  Let’s take a “point, counterpoint” look at the top three that are always used by those opposed to concealed carry on campus.

1.  Firearms on campus will increase the incidence of violent crime. In truth, this one is not borne out by statistics.  There are 11 college that allow concealed carry on campus.  There has not been a single incident, a single gun accident or a single gun theft.  Statistics show that licensed concealed handgun owners are 5 times less likely than non-permit holders to commit violent crimes.

2.  College students are not emotionally stable enough to be trusted with firearms. First, anyone wishing to get a concealed carry permit must be at least 21 years of age.  Personally, I know some 30 somethings that are not ‘emotionally stable enough to be trusted with firearms’.  There has to be an age threshold at some point.  Frankly,  this argument is insulting and condescending to thousands of responsible, mature students.  What about veterans and adult students?  What about the 18 year olds that are in military reserve service?  Are you starting to see how ridiculous this argument is?

3.  The answer to criminal violence on college campus is not ‘more guns’. Statistics fly in the face of this one for anyone who cares to look.  When states adopt broadly based concealed carry legislation, the rate of violent crime generally drops by a factor of 8% to 10% in the FIRST YEAR after such legislation is passed.  Criminals are now more concerned about the possibility that their prospective victim may be armed and literally do not commit as many crimes against persons.  Without the means to defend themselves on campus, the likelihood that a student will become a victim of a violent crime actually increases.

When asked about her veto, Governor Brewer stated that the term ‘public right-of-way’ was too vague and it was for this reason that she vetoed the bill.  Wikipedia says that a public right-of-way is defined as:  ”the right to travel unhindered, to access a route regardless of land ownership or any other legality”.  Seems pretty clear to me.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.5/10 (8 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +5 (from 9 votes)

Governor Brewer Signs Multiple New Firearms Laws in Arizona.

May 5, 2011 Uncategorized Comments Off

Governor Jan Brewer signed a total of six new firearms related laws in the days following the end of the current session of the Arizona Legislature.  While some of the most controversial laws, specifically the Firearms Omnibus Bill and Campus Concealed Carry bills were vetoed by Governor Brewer, below you can find a synopsis of the bills she did sign…

House Bill 2006 - Repeals ARS 17-305 which prohibits the carrying of firearms and “game-taking devices” in game refuges in Arizona.  While this law was originally thought of in terms of an ‘anti-poaching’ law, the effect was that anyone in a game refuge, which in many cases was in a wilderness area, was effectively disarmed and unable to defend themselves, not only from animal predators, but from the ‘two-legged’ variety of predators as well.  This was seen as a particular dangerous issue in certain areas of the state near the Mexican border.  While anti-poaching laws are still very much in effect, the repeal of ARS 17-305 decriminalizes the simple possession of a firearm.

House Bill 2146 – This bill eliminates the legal requirement for the Arizona Department of Public Safety to approve CCW training courses, designate DPS approved training organizations and designated DPS approved CCW instructors.  Essentially, this law provides that anyone who is an NRA Certified Instructor is now able to teach firearms safety courses that can be used to satisfy the training requirement to be issued an Arizona CCW Permit by the Department of Public Safety.  It also clarified and further expanded what satisfies the training requirement.  Without going into the full details of the law, it pretty much states that if you take a firearm safety course offered by anyone who is an NRA Instructor or a DPS Approved Instructor, you satisfy the training requirement.  Of course, taking any Law Enforcement or Security Guard course meets the requirement as well.  If you can show proof of either current or past honorable military service or show proof of having a valid or expired concealed weapons permit or firearms identification card from any other state or political subdivision that has a training requirement for issuance, that will do the trick as well.

House Bill 2645 – This bill made minor amendments to ARS 13-3105 that details the process of Forfeiture of weapons and explosives used by convicted felons during the commission of a crime.  The original law authorizes the state to dispose of forfeited weapons by sale to any business that is authorized to receive and dispose of weapons and that those weapons can be sold by those businesses to the public unless the weapon is otherwise prohibited under federal or state law.  The amendment simply removed the words “local law” which was previously in the original statute.

Senate Bill 1334 – This law modified the original statute ARS 13-3107 dealing with unlawful discharge of a firearm to remove the ability of local police chiefs of a municipality from closing an hunting area within their city limits at their own discretion if they felt that hunting in the area would be unsafe.  It does not limit the ability of a local city or town from passing an ordinance that does not permit the discharge of a firearm within a quarter-mile of any occupied structure.

Senate Bill 1469 – This law made several changes to ARS 13-406 which deals with Justification while in defense of a third person.  It eliminated the requirement that “a reasonable person would believe that such person’s intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person”.

It also clarifies that a person is deemed to be acting reasonably when such person reasonably believes that the third party is in imminent or actual danger as a result of a another person committing a crime of arson of an occupied structure, burglary in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, kidnapping, manslaughter, second or first degree murder, sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery or aggravated assault.

It further clarifies that justification applies when there is the use or threatened us of physical force or deadly physical force in a person’s home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where the person has a right to be.  It further clarifies that someone either unlawfully or forcefully entering a residential structure or occupied vehicle is presumed to pose an imminent threat of deadly harm to anyone in the residence structure or occupied vehicle.  This provides Arizona with one of the strongest “Castle Doctrine” laws in the United States.

Senate Bill 1610 – This law establishes the Colt Single Action Army Revolver as the official state firearm.

Only two of these bills create significant changes in Arizona law.  House Bill 2146 effectively deregulates who can become an instructor of firearms safety courses and what type of material must be taught in a firearms safety course curriculum.  It effectively permits any NRA certified instructor to teach firearms safety courses that will satisfy the training requirement for issuance of a CCW permit.  It also completely removes any specific requirements for what needs to be covered in the curriculum of a firearms safety course.

The upside of this law is that it is now very easy to satisfy the training requirement for an Arizona CCW Permit.  The downside is that there is now no enforcement capability by DPS if an instructor is incompetent or outright dangerous in what he or she is teaching.  Also, since there are no specific guidelines as to what should be included in the firearms safety course curriculum, quality of the content of courses may vary widely with some courses offering a great deal of valuable education while others might be essentially worthless.  Imagine if the same overall logic were introduced into drivers license education programs and driving instructors could develop their own curriculums and pass or fail students based on their curriculum without any minimum requirement in place by the DMV.  In my personal view, the opportunity for abuse is high.  I also believe that it will result in an overall decline in the quality of firearms education for the consumer.  I have already seen this as many formerly high quality training organizations have reduced their classes to a four hour bare bones firearms safety class with a minimal discussion of the legal issues associated with the use of lethal force.  By the way, did I mention that most of the training organizations are charging the same fee for the bare bones class as they charged for the original “DPS approved” eight hour course?

The second law with a major impact is Senate Bill 1469.  This law really broadens the presumption of justification in the event that a person would either need to go to the aid of a third party that is being threatened.  It further creates one of the strongest “Castle Doctrine” laws in the US by stating that it is PRESUMED that any person that unlawfully or forcefully enters a residence or occupied vehicle is BY DEFINITION a lethal threat to anyone in the residence or occupied vehicle.  This was a much needed clarification since previously there was a need to show that there was, in fact, a deadly threat before lethal force could be used.  Kudos to Senator Ron Gould for introducing this valuable piece of clarifying legislation.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (8 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +13 (from 13 votes)

U.S. House of Representatives Considering National Right to Carry Reciprocity Bill…

Urge Your Representative To Cosponsor H.R. 822, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011
Friday, April 08, 2011
Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have introduced vital legislation that will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

There are now only two states that have no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense.  Thirty-nine states have shall-issue permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems.

H.R. 822 would make a major step forward for gun owners’ rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized.

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home.  However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

In the few weeks since its introduction, H.R. 822 has added over 163 cosponsors. Click here to see if your Congressman is a cosponsor. However, more support is needed to make this bill a higher priority.

If your Congressman is not yet a cosponsor, respectfully urge him or her to support the fundamental right to self-defense by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 822. If your Representative is already a cosponsor, please offer your thanks for his or her support.  And remember to watch this alert for updates!

The complete text of this bill is included below.

This information was provided by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.  http://www.nraila.org

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill


H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• H.R. 822 recognizes the significant impact of the landmark cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which found that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and that the protections of the Second Amendment extend to infringements under state law.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have right-to-carry laws. Thirty-six of those have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska and Arizona, which also allow carrying without a permit), two have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (along with Alaska and Arizona) allows carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.)

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other right-to-carry states that keep such statistics. Right-to-carry is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, right-to-carry states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are right-to-carry states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with right-to-carry laws. Since adopting right-to-carry in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58 percent, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20 percent and 31 percent, respectively, since enactment of its 1996 right-to-carry law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and the constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. United States (1895))

• Congress affirmed the right to own guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

Problems with Interstate Firearms Transfers

July 20, 2010 Federal Firearms Laws, Firearms Transfers Comments Off

Question:  I have bought a gun from an individual through Gunsamerica.( Gunsamerica is the broker).  I, the buyer live in Tennessee. The seller lives in Ohio.  I sent him a copy of the a local dealer’s FLL and a check for the gun. The local dealer requested a copy of the seller’s drivers license.   The seller shipped the gun to the dealer.  The dealer opened the package and found no drivers license.  The dealer called me and told me he is refusing to release the gun without the sellers drivers license.  I called the the seller and he said the dealer had no right to open the package without me being present and he does not have to give his DL information to the dealer.   Who is right?  What do I do?

Answer: Let me quickly outline to you the normal process by which a firearm is transferred from a resident of one state to a resident of another state using a federally licensed firearms dealer.

Basically, a non-federally licensed individual can ship a firearm via a common carrier (UPS or FedEx) to a federally licensed firearms dealer for transfer to a resident of the state where the dealer is located.  The dealer is required to insure that the transferred firearm is delivered to the purchaser in compliance with the laws of the state while the purchaser is located.  This includes the purchaser completing a BATF Form 4437 and undergoing an instant background check through the NICS system.  As a purchaser, you are required to show positive identification of your identity, generally a driver’s license.

There is NO legal requirement that the entity managing the transfer (your dealer) be in possession of a copy of the driver’s license of the person that sent you the gun.  This is clearly a company policy that your dealer has.  It is NOT required by federal law. However, since your dealer is also not required to do these kinds of transfers, most people try and keep the dealer’s happy by doing what they ask.

In this case, your seller does not want to release a copy of his drivers license.  In this age of identity theft, I can’t exactly blame him.

As far as the dealer opening the package without you being present, if it was mailed to the dealer and the dealer was the primary addressee, it would be considered their mail and they can open it.  If it was sent to you, care of the dealer, then the dealer should have waited and allowed you to open it at their shop.  All this is kind of beside the point though as none of this is really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Your choices are basically these:

1.  You can try and talk the seller into providing a copy of his license so that the dealer can feel like his backside is covered in case the source of the firearm is ever questioned.

2.  You can try to help the dealer understand the seller’s point about not wanting to provide his license.  Remind the dealer (nicely) that the law does NOT require them to have a copy of the seller’s id and they are only acting as a middleman in the transfer.  They are not taking possession of the gun but rather simply making a transfer to you.

3.  If neither #1 or #2 work, you can simply direct the dealer to return the firearm to the seller.  They will most likely make you pay the shipping.  Then I would tell the seller that you are returning the gun and want your money back, plus the additional shipping that you had to pay to return the gun.  If you sent a personal check, you can stop payment if you think he won’t return your money.

Right now, you are in the middle of a dispute between the seller and the dealer. They dealer is asking for something they are not legally required to have.  The seller could easily provide a copy of his driver’s license but won’t.  I would talk to the dealer first.  Be sure to talk to the owner or manager, not an employee.  They should try and work with you to keep you as a customer.  If that doesn’t work, try to persuade the seller to help you out.  Use the prospect of returning the gun as leverage.  Guns America should have a place for you to leave feedback about your experience with the seller.  You can always hold the prospect of negative feedback over them as well.

My suggestion during these discussion is to remember my Grandma’s old saying:  “You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”.  If you are nice and appeal to their sense of trying to help you out, you might be more successful.

Good luck to you and consider buying locally in the future.  It is a lot less hassle.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/10 (3 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

Best Caliber Handgun for Self-Defense

July 20, 2010 Defensive Tactics, Firearm and Caliber Advice Comments Off

Question:  I am wondering what would be the most effective handgun to carry in an apocalyptic, doomsday type scenario. I’ve read the .45 has the best knockdown power, the .357 has the best metal penetrating ability, and the 9mm would be the most common ammunition around.  I’m fairly sure that each of the above calibers would find it’s place..it’s just that I can’t afford all three.  Which one might you choose in a doomsday situation?  I’ve read the Army in Iraq has gone to or is going to go from 9mm to .45.  This has stemmed from sometimes having to fire several shots to stop or kill the target.  The .357 would seem to be handy if one had to shoot a target through metal.  Can one find a load, (powder grains), or bullet configuration,(hollow point, etc.), in a .357 caliber that would give enhanced metal piercing ability along with the stopping power of a .45 caliber?  I’m just a little confused and would appreciate any advice to assist in my making a good choice.

Answer: In the scenario you describe, simply having a firearm and lots of ammo is the most essential thing.  I typically do not get into caliber discussions since they are mostly ‘religious’ in nature.  Some people have the opinion that the .45 caliber is the only way to go.  Others are more open minded about the effectiveness of calibers like the 9mm.

To specifically answer your questions, I’ll try and give you some background on the various calibers and what considerations are involved.  First, I would probably take the .357 off the table completely.  You did not say if you were thinking about .357 in a revolver or semi-auto, but the answer is still the same.  A semi-auto pistol chambered for a .357 SIG cartridge is a handful in terms of recoil.  Many people have a difficult time shooting the caliber accurately.  The bullet size and weight is roughly comparable to the 9mm.  The 9mm is approximately .354 caliber, so the bullet diameters are essentially the same.  The weight of both projectiles in terms of grains is approximately 124 gr.  The different is the pressure that the cartridges are loaded to.  A .357 SIG at 124 gr. has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1450 fps.  The 9mm with the same bullet weight travels approximately 1150 -1200 fps.  The additional velocity is what gives the .357 its greater penetrating power.

In my opinion, having fired both calibers extensively, you are better off with the 9mm as it is more controllable, ammunition is much more available and in a doomsday scenario such as the one you describe, 9mm ammo will be much easier to come by.

The .45 ACP also has a proven record of being effective against a human target.  Typically, the .45 uses a 230 gr. bullet and has a muzzle velocity of approximately 850 fps.  It is a bigger bullet, but it is traveling much more slowly.  What make it effective is that it makes a pretty large hole in whatever it hits.  Larger hole = more damage to tissue and more bleeding.

However, if you compare the relative energy delivered, the average 9mm 124 gr. bullet delivers about 382 ft/lbs of energy vs. 352 ft/lbs of energy for the .45 caliber 230 gr. bullet.  In terms of energy delivered, the difference between the two is pretty much a wash.  The penetration of the 9mm will likely be better since it has a higher velocity.  Better penetration=more damage to important organs that are deeper in the body.

The 9mm is very controllable as it does not have as much felt recoil as the .45 ACP.  For some people this is an issue.  In my view, the biggest factor in gunshot wound effectiveness is shot placement.  As you can see, as in so many other things, caliber selection is a series of trade-offs.  Each caliber has some advantages.  You need to decide which are more important to you.

In terms of the Army switching calibers in Iraq, think for a moment about the issue relative to the restrictions placed on the military.  Geneva Convention rules require that the military use ‘full metal jacket’ or ‘ball’ ammo.  They are not permitted to use “jacketed hollow points” or other defensive ammo.  This makes a big difference in the ability of the 9mm vs. .45 ACP to wound.  A 9mm JHP round typically expands to an average of .62 to .64 inches in diameter.  A typical .45 ACP JHP round expands to .74 inches in diameter.  The difference between the two is approximately .12 inches or about 1/8″.  If you look at the size of holes being punched by ball ammo, it is .354 inches for the 9mm vs .45 inches.  When penetration is not an issue, the bigger hole is better.

Honestly, I don’t think you would go wrong with either a .45 or a 9mm.  One other thing I like about the 9mm vs. the .45 is the magazine capacity.  For just about any semi-auto pistol, the 9mm has close to twice the capacity of the same gun in .45 caliber.  In the Glock 17 the ammo capacity is 17 rounds while the average full size 1911 only holds 9 rounds.  You can get a Glock 21 that will hold 13 rounds of .45 ACP though.

My personal handgun of choice is the Glock 23.  It is chambered for the .40 S&W cartridge.  While not nearly as popular as either 9mm or .45 ACP, the .40 S&W is a respectable compromise.  It pushes a 180 gr. bullet to a muzzle velocity of around 1100 fps delivering around 490 ft/lbs of energy.  That is a lot more energy than either the .45 ACP or 9mm.  It also punches a bigger hole than the 9mm, averaging about .68 inches.  It does have a hefty recoil, but if you can learn to control it, it is a powerful defensive round.  Interestingly, you can also purchase a .357 SIG barrel that will simply drop into the Glock 23 allowing you to shoot either caliber by swapping out the barrel.  Glock 23 magazines are interchangeable for both .40 and .357 SIG cartridges.

I hope I have given you some food for thought here…bottom line, if I had to choose one gun in a doomsday scenario, ammo will be the issue and for that reason I would probably go with the 9mm.  If you can plan ahead and acquire enough ammo to eliminate availability as an issue, I’d consider the .40 S&W…big bullet, higher velocity and greater energy delivered than either the 9mm or the .45 ACP.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (41 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +39 (from 47 votes)

Felony Conviction and Federal Home Protection Act

July 20, 2010 Crime Avoidance, Federal Firearms Laws Comments Off

Question:  I am a felon and had to do a prison sentence.  My house was broke into twice while I was in bed asleep and both times I fled the home for my safety.  The police are telling me there is no true way to protect myself inside my home and that felons cannot possess a firearm to protect their home until five years after their release from prison.  I have had about eight people tell me that they have been to prison but under the 2009 Federal Home Protection Act that felons are now allowed to possess a firearm only in the home for protection.  I live in Texas.  Can you give me more insight on this and how I could get a copy of that act?

Answer: The Home Protection Act that you refer to has nothing to do with your ability to protect yourself in your home.  It deals with a different subject entirely.

As a convicted felon, you are a ‘prohibited possessor’ and not able to legally possess a firearm or ammo.  There are a couple of things I might suggest.  First, I’d do what I could to make your house more secure.  Install better locks, trim away excess shrubs outside, install outside lighting and in general do anything possible to make your house less attractive to a burglar.  Some people suggest getting a large dog that has a very loud bark.  Burglars do not like large, loud dogs.

If that is not possible based on your living situation, you might also consider keeping a baseball bat close at hand in your bedroom.  Many burglars will not be armed when they break in due to the enhanced penalties if they are caught and convicted.  If the person breaking in is a druggie or a gang member, they may be armed since they aren’t especially worried about enhanced penalties.

Finally, I would check with an attorney to see at what point you might be able to have your conviction set aside and have your record expunged.  This would permit you to petition the court to restore your civil rights, including your right to own a firearm.  This only works if your felony conviction is for a non-violent offense or a non-sexual offense.  If your felony conviction involved serious injury or death to another person or was for a sexual crime, that option is a non-starter.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

Arizona Constitutional Carry About to Become Law…

April 15, 2010 2nd Amendment Issues, AZ CCW Laws Comments Off

A bill that would eliminate the requirement for Arizona residents to have a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona has passed both houses of the Arizona Legislature and is awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature before it becomes law.  If signed by the governor, the new law would take effect 90 days after the close of the current legislative session.  Since the session usually ends in late June, this would mean the law would actually take effect sometime in late September.  If the governor does not sign or veto the legislation within 5 days of final passage, it will become law without her signature.

Arizona’s Senate Bill 1102 makes sweeping changes to the current law that requires an Arizona resident to possess a concealed carry permit in order to carry a concealed firearm.  Arizona has traditionally been what is described as an “Open Carry” state where citizens may carry a firearm openly anywhere it is legal to have a firearm.

In order to carry concealed in those same places, residents needed to have a “CCW permit” which was obtained by taking an 8 hour training course, qualifying with a firearm and passing a criminal background check.  This law would eliminate the permit requirement but not the permit program.

The key element in the new law is that a concealed carry permit is not necessary “unless required by any other law”.  For example, to carry a concealed firearm in a restaurant, Arizona law requires that you have a concealed weapons permit.  Similarly, federal law requires a state issued permit if you wish to carry concealed in a national park.  Anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm in another state will need an Arizona CCW permit in order to have reciprocal privileges outside of Arizona.

Residents will still be able to get a CCW permit by taking a course that meets the requirements of the new law and submitting an application to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.  Courses that will satisfy the requirement include any NRA course, any approved Hunter Safety course or a course from an approved CCW instructor.

The courses offered by CCW instructors would probably be the best bet since they are specifically geared towards concealed carry and most instructors provide the application and fingerprinting service as part of their courses.

Opponents of the law feel that the current CCW process is a good one and has worked well for over 14 years.  Most feel that the minimal safety and marksmanship training requirement and education in the laws relating to the use of lethal or physical force in self defense are important for anyone carrying a concealed firearm.

Advocates of the new law argue that Second Amendment rights should not be constrained by concealed carry laws.  They also point to the fact that in 12 states across the US, concealed carry permits are issued without any training requirement or background check.  They further argue that criminal penalties associated with concealed carry can result in severe penalties for people that might inadvertently cover their firearm while carrying openly.

If signed into law, Arizona will become the third and the most heavily populated state to adopt ‘constitutional concealed carry’.  Currently only Alaska and Vermont permit concealed carry without a permit.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (7 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

Open Carry in a Vehicle in Arizona

March 25, 2010 AZ CCW Laws, Vehicle Carry Comments Off

Question:  I am coming from out of state and was wondering if it was legal for me to open carry in the state even though I don’t have an Arizona CCW permit.  My other question is can I open carry in a car or does the handgun have to be cased and loaded?

Answer:  You can open carry legally in Arizona and do not need an AZ CCW permit.  You must have a AZ CCW permit if you conceal the firearm or you could be arrested.

Regarding open carry in a vehicle, you can do that as well, however it is subject to a lot more interpretation.

Let’s say you were carrying on your right hip and you were seat-belted into your vehicle on the driver’s side.  The law states that it must be “obvious to the casual observer that you are in possession of a firearm”.  If you were involved in a traffic stop and a police officer approached on the driver’s side, would they be able to see your firearm?  Probably not.  There have been different interpretations by different jurisdictions in the Phoenix area whether this constitutes open or concealed carry.

To avoid a problem in your vehicle.  I would have it cased and in the glove box or some other storage compartment in the vehicle.  That way you won’t have any legal issues if you are involved in a traffic stop…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.7/10 (7 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

Felony Conviction and Firearms Possession…

March 8, 2010 Legal Issues, State Firearms Laws Comments Off

Question:  I was convicted of a felony in 1998.  Can I legally possess a firearm?

Answer: Since you didn’t tell me where you lived, I will have to assume that you are in Arizona.  Unless you have had your felony conviction set aside, you cannot legally possess a firearm.  Since it has been a very long time since you committed your felony, you may be able to petition the court to ‘set aside’ your conviction, expunge your record and restore your civil rights, including your right to own a firearm.  This is only possible if your felony was a ‘non-violent’ one.  If the crime you committed involved either serious injury or death or was sexual in nature (sexual assault, molestation, etc.) the court will generally not consider a request to have the conviction set aside.

In general, if this is something you would like to pursue, you should probably contact an attorney who could help you with this process.  It is also possible to petition the court directly, but you’d probably need someone to help you with this.  You could contact the Clerk of Court in the jurisdiction where you were convicted of your crime to find out how the process might work.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (6 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Featured Content:

We are back after quite a long break…

May 16, 2013

Hello to all of our readers! After a long hiatus, we will be updating the site again.  Look for lots of new content to be added over the coming weeks.  We will also be updating older posts to reflect the current Arizona CCW laws. Thanks for your patience. Doug Little, Owner and Director of Training [...]

What did the “Campus Concealed Carry” bill really say and why did the Governor veto it?

May 5, 2011

Senate Bill 1467 was a very simply bill.  It would have simply amended the existing ARS statute 13-2911 with a single substantive paragraph.  The paragraph would have preserved the rights of the governing board of an educational institution to adopt rules to preserve public order on that institutions property which would govern the conduct of [...]

Governor Brewer Signs Multiple New Firearms Laws in Arizona.

May 5, 2011

Governor Jan Brewer signed a total of six new firearms related laws in the days following the end of the current session of the Arizona Legislature.  While some of the most controversial laws, specifically the Firearms Omnibus Bill and Campus Concealed Carry bills were vetoed by Governor Brewer, below you can find a synopsis of [...]

U.S. House of Representatives Considering National Right to Carry Reciprocity Bill…

May 4, 2011

Urge Your Representative To Cosponsor H.R. 822, The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011 Friday, April 08, 2011 Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) have introduced vital legislation that will enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states. There are now only [...]

Problems with Interstate Firearms Transfers

July 20, 2010

Question:  I have bought a gun from an individual through Gunsamerica.( Gunsamerica is the broker).  I, the buyer live in Tennessee. The seller lives in Ohio.  I sent him a copy of the a local dealer’s FLL and a check for the gun. The local dealer requested a copy of the seller’s drivers license.   The [...]

Best Caliber Handgun for Self-Defense

July 20, 2010

Question:  I am wondering what would be the most effective handgun to carry in an apocalyptic, doomsday type scenario. I’ve read the .45 has the best knockdown power, the .357 has the best metal penetrating ability, and the 9mm would be the most common ammunition around.  I’m fairly sure that each of the above calibers [...]

Felony Conviction and Federal Home Protection Act

July 20, 2010

Question:  I am a felon and had to do a prison sentence.  My house was broke into twice while I was in bed asleep and both times I fled the home for my safety.  The police are telling me there is no true way to protect myself inside my home and that felons cannot possess [...]

Arizona Constitutional Carry About to Become Law…

April 15, 2010

A bill that would eliminate the requirement for Arizona residents to have a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona has passed both houses of the Arizona Legislature and is awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature before it becomes law.  If signed by the governor, the new law would take effect 90 days [...]

Open Carry in a Vehicle in Arizona

March 25, 2010

Question:  I am coming from out of state and was wondering if it was legal for me to open carry in the state even though I don’t have an Arizona CCW permit.  My other question is can I open carry in a car or does the handgun have to be cased and loaded? Answer:  You [...]

Felony Conviction and Firearms Possession…

March 8, 2010

Question:  I was convicted of a felony in 1998.  Can I legally possess a firearm? Answer: Since you didn’t tell me where you lived, I will have to assume that you are in Arizona.  Unless you have had your felony conviction set aside, you cannot legally possess a firearm.  Since it has been a very [...]