Ya gotta love Arizona!

If it's posted, you can't legally carry there. If they serve alcohol, you can't legally carry there.

B1 Ball Park serves beer. Concealed carry, even with a permit is a violation.

When I lived there, I carried openly in places that did not bar it. For the most part, if a business wouldn't let me carry, I didn't go there at all, unless I simply couldn't find an alternative. Then the decision had to be made: carry concealed or don't carry? The courthouse didn't leave me a choice, as they have metal detectors to go through. Red Lobster doesn't.

I prefer to give my businesses that are not hostile to my rights.

My wife agrees with me, but she has never been comfortable carrying openly herself. She's always carried concealed. I personally would prefer to see more people carry openly where legal, but that's just me.
 
Hey Daiseycutter, maybe you should review the parameters here in Arizona where deadly force is legally justifiable.

As for me, YES I'd shoot some scumbag molesting a child. I might even do it if he was unarmed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif


4. Prevent special crimes - A.R.S. § 13-411

a. You may threaten or use both physical force and deadly physical force against another to the extent you reasonably believe that such force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure [of your home], burglary in the second or first degree [of your home], kidnapping, manslaughter, second or first degree murder, sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery, or aggravated assault. You will be presumed to be acting reasonably if you are acting to prevent the commission of any of the foregoing offenses. You have no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force to prevent these special crimes (A.R.S. § 13-411). Nonetheless, "retreat" can have two useful purposes: (a) shooting tactics include maximizing the distance between you and your target and minimizing your exposure, and (b) evidence that you tried to avoid having to use deadly force will aid in your justification defense.
 
Daisycutter, I think you can make your points without the personal attacks. Also, you spelled "genius" wrong. Just thought I'd point that out since you're calling my intelligence into question.

First, "grubby" depends on perception. What, a working man can't carry a gun? Since you're such a keen judge of character on who should or should not carry a firearm, perhaps you should beome a consultant for Sarah Brady. I find the "grubby" remark rather elitist. "I am better than thou, for I carry concealed and all those dirty peasants carry them---ugh!---openly."

Second, if you're admittedly carrying a concealed firearm into prohibited places, it is YOU who are giving gun owners a bad name if you are caught doing so. All the liberals will say, "See! I bet that guy even carried that gun into schools! That's why concealed carry is bad. The gun owners won't follow the laws!" A gun doesn't become magically invisible when concealed. Lots of cops can spot concealed handguns on persons. Just takes one cop having a bad day to see you in a prohibited place with that handgun. The thing that "intimidates the sheep" is gun owners breaking the law with firearms. That is the crux of the whole gun control argument. That firearms carried concealed or otherwise will lead to crime. You're already breaking the law by carrying into prohibited places, so, you're already making a compelling argument for the liberals.

You are also not clear on using deadly force in regards to the armed assailant child molestation scenario I presented. I pulled this straight from the "Arizona Gun Owners Guide" by Alan Korwin: According to Arizona law, you are justified in using deadly force to prevent someone who is committing sexual conduct with a minor (SS13-1405), sexual assault (SS13-1406), child molestation (SS13-1410), and aggravated assault (SS13-1204,A,1&2) among other things. The law says you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under those circumstances. I find it rather remarkable that you are able to make snap judgements on people open-carrying legally in accordance with state law while you are admittedly breaking the law regarding carry of firearms and also do not know the law regarding use of deadly force.

In closing, I would hope that you will refrain from the personal attacks and make your points based on facts.
 
I've always liked to wear my gun outside for all the honest world to see as a wise man once said. I do have a few concealed holsters but I only use them during business hours or business travel... rarely during recreation.

Myself, I like to see those "grubby" guys carrying weapons. That guy has probably had to learn right from wrong, probably had to work for everything they've got and he probably don't want to lose anything he's got... thats just fine with me if he wants to carry a gun.

I'd rather see that than some cleancut nitwit leaning over to pick up his salad fork at Ruth Chris' Steakhouse and bouncing a loaded 40 across the waiters penny loafers.

That being said... does anyone have reference to national gun laws? A resource where one could gather information on carrying in each state or different counties of the states? I know there has to be something out there... I can't find it though.

P.S. Daisy, if we ever cross paths and someone begins molesting a child.... don't worry about your right hook.... just duck.
 
13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:
1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person

According to the A.R.S. I found, a person can only use deadly physical force to stop someone who would be unlawfully using deadly physical force.

Is molestation considered deadly physical force? Maybe, if you could prove he was going to kill/maim the victim?

If it's me, I'm not shooting in that situation. I'll intervene and stop the offender. I'm not going to cap anyone unless I have to. I believe that sounds reasonable. I don't think child molesters are usually big studly guys, I don't see how I could prove disparity of force.

Also, I'm not going to proof-read everything I post for the sake of the grubbys. Usually they don't catch the errors anyway, and I don't get paid to do this.

Lastly, I'm perfectly willing to accept the outcome of carrying my pistol concealed into a restaurant that serves alchol. I've also been told that the a no-firearms sign bears no legal significance, unless it's accompanied by the properly formatted legal jargon. Essentially, all the no-firearms sign means is that the owner can legally ask you to leave (or leave the gun outside) if he doesn't want you/it there.
 
This has become an interesting debate… It reminds me of that old Miller lite commercial – Less filling! Tastes great!

Both ways of carry are fine in my book, however I prefer concealed carry in urban areas, since I’m just not one of those guys who want to draw attention - you have to admit “open carry” draws attention weather it is wanted or not.

Kevan.62, even though you may be within your rights to add some ventilation to a perv, you still could find yourself selling all of your guns and house to defending yourself in court. Remember, all it takes is one liberal prosecutor to curb your enthusiasm. You may also find that there are more than a few attorneys willing to bet they can get you into civil court and win.

I lived in Arizona for a number of years – East valley. A fanny pack with an incorporated holster was always the most comfortable for me, summer or winter. My buddies and I used to go to Caswells off of Stapely rd. and to Applebee’s on Gilbert rd. afterwards. I never liked leaving a small arsenal in the trunk of my car, however everything stayed outside - I obeyed the law.

Daisey cutter, please do not carry into a public arena. If you are caught you will be in serious trouble with today’s climate and fears of terrorism.
 
Daisycutter, I guess you didn't read my post.

Arizona Revised Statute 13-411. Deadly force is allowed to stop certain felonies while in progress, even if NO-ONES life is in danger.
 
Even if the shooting in question is justified, you will be sued by someone somewhere and will be a major pain in the arse.
 
Grubby? Why, Daisycutter, what an ugly thing to say! Does this mean we're not friends anymore?

Once more, you may opt to break the law and carry your firearm into establishments that serve alcohol and sporting arenas that forbid weapons inside. However, that places you squarely into the definition of "hypocrite" if you chastise others for LEGALLY carrying their weapons in ways they see fit. In other words, pot, meet kettle.

And while you may not see a need to proofread your posts, if you are going to be lecturing about "idiocy" and "sophomorism", then I strongly suggest you consult your dictionary from time to time when you get stuck on such brain-busters as "genius". I realize it must be difficult, what with your busy schedule of judging others by their appearance, being a hypocrite, and your lugubrious attempts at playing the internet tough guy. But, honestly, proper spelling really does matter. Oh, sure, I could probably see your poor spelling and assume you are fairly unread, perhaps even borderline illiterate. Hmmm....kind of like assuming everyone who open-carries is "grubby" without even knowing them or what they do for a living.
 
That being said... does anyone have reference to national gun laws? A resource where one could gather information on carrying in each state or different counties of the states? I know there has to be something out there... I can't find it though.
Click to expand...
Here's a good link jrbhunter,

Federal gun laws
 
Could some one tell me in Montana has open carry I belive they do but I'm not sure and how old do you have to be to carry, and also do you have to be a montana resdient. Becasue I'm going out there thiss fall hunting and if I can I would like to carry my .41mag all the time.
 
Good Stuff Nite' Thanks.

And too add to the dabate... surely you're not saying that you would sit by or merely throw punches at the person molesting a child? I'd have my pistol in his face instantly and if he ran or showed agressivness he'd be shot.

I'm not going to say that I would shoot someone in the leg or some nonsense, if I'm pumped up enough to shoot someone I'm way too pumped up to worry about saving their life! I couldn't witness something like that and retreat to a telephone... maybe some could... I couldn't.
 
Originally posted by Kevan.62:
[QB]"Grubby"? Why, Daisycutter, what an ugly thing to say! Does this mean we're not friends anymore?
QB]
Click to expand...
Do I know you? You gonna start cursing me in latin now, Doc?

In college I didn't place much emphasis on grammar. Sorry. Engineers get 2 semesters of English and maybe one of technical writing. That compared to about 6 semesters of hardcore mathematics and a balance of math involved classes left me with less than perfect spelling.

genius. There I proved I could spell the word. I admit I wrongly inserted an "o" in the word rendering the entire word unreadable.

Since we're going to get petty.

solve this DE: xydx + (2x^2 + 3y^2 - 20)dy = 0

Use any resource you want.
 
3y? I'd have to use a resource thats not sitting on my shoulders to figure it out if you really intend to use 3y to solve that to 0.
-------------------------------------------------
It really isn't all that hard anyways Daisy, you're putting too much thought into this. If a person is molesting a child it doesn't take quantam physics to make a decision on how to react.

And why would you be concerned about lawsuits from shooting a felon when you commit misdemenors regularly by CCW in forbidden places?
 
Back
Top