[meauxna]

Isn't that the new law..? Arizona & Vermont don't require a permit for concealed carry. He would not have had to apply.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...apons-law.html

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by Steerpike And he was able to buy a gun. Just curious ... does anyone know the AZ 'concealed weapon' permit rules (which have opened up significantly recently, from what I understand) - would he have been able to get one, do you think, had he applied?

According to this, there are no laws:

Arizona law allows anyone to carry a gun in public if it’s in full view, making it what’s known as an open-carry state. Until recently, gun store owners say, it was common to see people carrying weapons in grocery stores or coffee shops. That’s less true today, because last year that state passed a law allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

[Octang Frye]

Gas is £1.64 a litre in London.

[dakota44]

Originally Posted by Steerpike And he was able to buy a gun. Just curious ... does anyone know the AZ 'concealed weapon' permit rules (which have opened up significantly recently, from what I understand) - would he have been able to get one, do you think, had he applied?

Now, you do no longer need a permit to carry concealed if you are 21 or over. Last year, legislators passed a law allowing concealed-weapon permit holders (you do still need a permit to do that) to enter bars and restaurants. Guns and booze. Good combo. But bars and restaurants can ban it on their own. Under a 2009 law, bars and restaurants wishing to ban firearms must post signs at their entrances to notify patrons.

The Department of Liquor Licensing and Control, which distributes the signs, has seen as many requests for the signs in the past 3 months as it saw since the law went into effect in October.


The new law makes several changes to the permitting process and rules regulating concealed carry:

• It removes the requirement that individuals have a permit to carry a concealed weapon anywhere that open carry is allowed. Individuals will still need a permit to carry a concealed weapon in bars and restaurants and to qualify for reciprocal privileges when in states that require permits.

• The new law lets individuals obtain permits through means other than the eight-hour training course mandated under the previous law. These other means include any NRA firearms- or safety-training course and a hunter-education course administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

• It requires individuals to answer honestly if police ask if they are carrying a weapon. The law also allows police officers to take temporary custody of a weapon during stops.

• It stiffens penalties for individuals who commit crimes while carrying a concealed weapon.

The link to this http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...apons-law.html


Full text of the law here. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1108s.pdf

[dakota44]

Originally Posted by meauxna Isn't that the new law..? Arizona & Vermont don't require a permit for concealed carry. He would not have had to apply. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...apons-law.html

Alaska too.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by dakota44 I agree with much of this, except that he was more than socially awkward or a quirky adolescent, from what I have read. When a number of class mates in College go to the professor to express that they are afraid of him because of the things he frequently says in class and his behavior and in the wake of numerous complaints as well as numerous confrontations with campus Police, the College finally suspends him and says that they need a letter from a Phsyc. that he is not a danger to himself or others.....that goes beyond quirky and awkward. It does seem that most of his problems began to unfold last February.

The social awkwardness that I was referring to was how he may have been perceived during adolescense. Not now or during the recent escalation of his condition.

So 6 people, including a 9 year old girl died and 12 or 13 others were seriously wounded and a young man is now facing a likely death penalty because there was no mechanism to ensure that he received the mental health care he obviously needed. That still says to me that we are doing something terribly wrong in the area of mental health. Clearly we should be able to find an answer, some answer. I would hope.

Though disturbing in retrospect, nothing he did at the school met the level required for forcible institutionalization. The laws are there to protect people from being forced into mental hospitals by their government - not to protect the world from the bad things they might do. How would you change the law?

[dakota44]

Originally Posted by Leslie66 The social awkwardness that I was referring to was how he may have been perceived during adolescense. Not now or during the recent escalation of his condition. Though disturbing in retrospect, nothing he did at the school met the level required for forcible institutionalization. The laws are there to protect people from being forced into mental hospitals by their government - not to protect the world from the bad things they might do. How would you change the law?

I think the problem is that they cannot even be forced, if one wishes to use that term, to even seek outpatient treatment. I am sure there are many ways to change the law that would provide some assurances, but I question whether anyone has ever sat down and formulated an idea. I just don't think that the status quo is good enough. Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by dakota44 I think the problem is that they cannot even be forced, if one wishes to use that term, to even seek outpatient treatment. I am sure there are many ways to change the law that would provide some assurances, but I question whether anyone has ever sat down and formulated an idea. I just don't think that the status quo is good enough. Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

Of course people can be forced into outpatient treatment. A judge can order a psychiatric evaluation. It happens every day. However, a college professor cannot or a classroom of his peers cannot. If he had returned to campus, and campus police had arrested him, that is probably exactly what a judge would have done. He didn't go back to the school though, did he? And I think that was a very well calculated choice.

[Octang Frye]

Try to minimize risk is the obvious answer, by bringing in more and more legislation.
Which, of course, is futile.

One of the guys who subdued Loughner was concealed carrying.
24 year old.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati... m.html?r=news

[Steve_]

Originally Posted by dakota44 The problem with an insanity plea on his behalf, especially given the low success rate of such pleas in Arizona, is the evidence that clearly indicates that he planned the crime and it was not a random act of insanity.

He clearly had a warped view of reality on which he based those decisions. Regardless of what the legal process is (who cares frankly they'll throw the book at him) he was clearly in need of serious medical attention and he didn't get it.

Look at Martin Bryant in Australia - he did almost the same thing in Hobart and is now confined to a mental hospital. Ditto for John Hinckley and they changed Federal law afterward because people were upset he wasn't put in prison! One of his defence attorneys is the brother of a friend of mine and it was clear to me from talking to his attorney the guy is barking mad.

[Rete]

Originally Posted by dakota44 How did this get to me wanting them ALL drugged and locked up?

It became about you in my reply because of what you wrote in the post below.

Originally Posted by dakota44 Sorry if you fail to see any validity to my argument. I'm someone who does not like to see mentally disturbed people suffer those torments needlessly. I must be terribly warped to be so concerned.

[Rete]

Originally Posted by meauxna Good thing too, or traffic on this site would grind to a halt. I've been following a discussion elsewhere about people who sexually abuse children. The remedies proposed by otherwise sane, sober people has shocked me. There's a group of thinkers who say that locking these guys (it's mostly guys) up, castrating, removing all freedoms, even implanting GPS if we can't keep them locked up, is the only way to go. It's another form of craziness, but we can't possibly lock everyone up even if that were the solution.

Both myself, my family, my daugther and my DH all feel the very same way. Be a mom who has had this done to your child and then have a discussion on what you think is the appropriate way to treat the man or woman who did this to your child.

If we can't lock them up, then let's string them up.

[Octang Frye]

The weird and crazy lynch mob mentality is strong here.
Creepy. I need a shower.

[Steve_]

Originally Posted by dakota44 Now, you do no longer need a permit to carry concealed if you are 21 or over.

Yes, except in a place that sells alcohol such as a bar or restaurant (need a permit for that) in a retail establishment that has a clearly posted sign prohibiting it, within 1,000 feet of a school (although you can with a permit) or on Federal property (e.g. the post office) or any listed controlled area, which includes airports and so on.

Given the reality that you never know whether a shop will have a sign up, it's a pretty meaningless provision imo.

Bear in mind it's not just guns, it's "weapons", which includes knives and so on.

It's not really relevant to what he did, what's relevant is that he passed the background check for two reasons: his previous ticket for possession of drug paraphernalia is such a minor offence it wasn't recorded in the NICS system, plus he had never received medical attention for his mental problems, so there's no way he'd show up in NICS for that either.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf Read question 11.

[Leslie]

Originally Posted by meauxna Good thing too, or traffic on this site would grind to a halt. I've been following a discussion elsewhere about people who sexually abuse children. The remedies proposed by otherwise sane, sober people has shocked me. There's a group of thinkers who say that locking these guys (it's mostly guys) up, castrating, removing all freedoms, even implanting GPS if we can't keep them locked up, is the only way to go. It's another form of craziness, but we can't possibly lock everyone up even if that were the solution. If you go on a crazy in Portland these days, it's highly likely you'll be shot dead in the ensuing police confrontation. This has not proved a positive mental-health-treatment plan. <---hyperbole How do we all become 'my brother's keeper'?

Girrrrl, don't get me started.

They actually are already doing all of these things to pedophiles. Well, not the GPS thing but they make them wear monitors which is basically the same thing. It's just a matter of time before we start chipping them though. Which is actually stooopid, unless they implant it into a major organ, because a hardcore pedophile will just hack it out of their flesh when the urge becomes strong enough.