1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Arizona Moves to Correct Contradictions in Firearm Definitions

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dean Weingarten, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten New Member

    Arizona, as with many states, has numerous definitions of what is legally considered a firearm. The definition of “firearm” is found in several different places in the Arizona legal code. This makes it difficult for citizens and lawyers to determine what is legal and what is not. People have faced prosecution for possessing items that most would not consider to be firearms, such as BB guns, airsoft replicas, squirt guns, or antique guns that are not legally firearms under federal law.

    One man was prosecuted for possession of a firearm for a collection of parts that experts testified could not fire, but could be made to fire if nonexistant custom parts were created and installed on the existing components. By that standard, anyone with steel, files, and a hacksaw could be prosecuted as being in possession of a firearm.

    In order to prevent confusion, Arizona bill HB2234 creates one uniform definition of “Firearm” that conforms to current federal definitions and insures that citizens will not be prosecuted under firearms statutes for possession of BB guns, squirt guns, antiques, pepper spray, and replicas.

    Here is the proposed definiton, which may become a model for other states to follow:

    Link to proposed legislation

    ©2013 by Dean Weingarten. Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

  2. izhevsk

    izhevsk New Member

    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  3. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 New Member

    So, in Arizona a firearm with the firing pin removed is no longer a firearm.
  4. deadin

    deadin Active Member

    However, what about if you have the firing pin in your possession? Is it then considered "constructive possession"?
  5. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd New Member

    Interesting cut-off date. I should think for greater clarity and given the time period, the cut-off would be January 1st 1900.

    I wonder what the date is picked for, technology, patent filing?

    "But officer, it's not a firearm till I replace this part... the magazine." There's a $5,000 lawyer bill waiting to happen.
  6. danez71

    danez71 Active Member

    But it says:

    I dont dont inserting a mag would be consider "repair" by most people.
  7. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd New Member

    ""....use of tools or the replacement of parts.""

    I was facetiously concentrating on the OR, a target of many lawyers.
  8. deadin

    deadin Active Member

    It actually should read "on or after January 1st 1899" then it would correspond with the Federal definition of an antique being manufactured "in or before 1898".
  9. 2ifbyC

    2ifbyC New Member

    Thanks for the definition update.

    FYI, I did hear from McCain; he said he is for 2A rights but is non committal. He wants to review any gun control bill language before deciding whether he will support it or not.

    I have not heard from Flake as of yet (over seven weeks and have written twice).
  10. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard New Member

    McCain does not vote on the laws for the state of Arizona.
  11. 2ifbyC

    2ifbyC New Member

    I was giving the OP an update from our AZ representatives in Congress. Sorry for the confusion since the thread definition was related to AZ laws.
  12. NMPOPS

    NMPOPS New Member

    .use of tools or the replacement of parts.""

    I was facetiously concentrating on the OR, a target of many lawyers.

    Your taking this out of context. Firearm does not include a firearm that is incapable of being fired without mechanical repair by the use of tools or the replacement of parts.

    Replacement of the magazine is not a "mechanical repair".
  13. barnbwt

    barnbwt Active Member

    So, if you slam the gun down on the ground real hard as the officer is approaching and smash something important, you weren't carrying? Or a critical part you can remove and discard quickly (and replace cheaply)?

    I agree with the intention of the law, clarification is badly needed in many places due to the piled up layers of weapons laws passed over the years. 10 points for any Texans who know what a "Slung Shot" is ;). Aside from that one caveat at the end, it seems a very reasoned (not "reasonable") and precise definition that I would imagine most would find acceptable. Does this make felons out of highschoolers who make a hairspray powered potato gun?

  14. beatledog7

    beatledog7 New Member

    AZ (and the other 49) should concentrate on defining and then cracking down on "criminal acts" before focusing on what amounts to nothing more than one of the many implements occasionally used in committing them.
  15. Mousegun

    Mousegun Member

    Many of the gun laws are written by people that don't fully understand guns and have to make them as broad as they can in order to get their point across.

    Then the prosecuter steps in and joins the party, plays with words and does his best to lay the hurts on the victim.
  16. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd New Member

    Again... facetiously commenting upon the replacement of a non existing magazine with a loaded one and that leaving an opportunity for an altered interpretation. The magazine being argued as being a part or component necessary to the functioning of the gun.

    Then the counter would be to single load it.

    The point is that legally, the word "or" separates "replacement parts" from "mechanical repair" as being two completely different circumstances.

    I don't get what's so hard to understand in pointing out the glaring potential gap in their new definition.
  17. danez71

    danez71 Active Member

    If youre being facetious, I get it.

    If youre not... there really isnt a "glaring potential gap in their new definition" because the "or" separates two methods of fixing a gun in need of mechanical repair.

    All I was saying is that gun with out a mag would be a tough sell to claim it was 'in need or mechanical repair'.

    However... now that I think more about it, a gun with a mag disconnect cant be single shot loaded and fired and is essentially non funtional at all as the mag is an essential part for the firing mechanisms to function.

    Hmm.... interesting. Still a tough sell IMO
  18. armoredman

    armoredman Active Member

    This is necessary to keep a standard definition, so "criminal acts" aren't prosecuted for a non-criminal offense. I can see it getting amended to add,
    Or something along those lines - not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
  19. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    I think that falls through the loop hole of "and that is designed to use fixed cartridges"
  20. kozak6

    kozak6 Member

    So then what's the point?

    I'm not aware of anything resembling a firearm that uses a fixed cartridge with burning gas as a propellant.

Share This Page