Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    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.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/02/arizona-moves-to-correct-contradictions.html
     
  2. izhevsk

    izhevsk Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    Colorado
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  3. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Georgia
    So, in Arizona a firearm with the firing pin removed is no longer a firearm.
     
  4. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    However, what about if you have the firing pin in your possession? Is it then considered "constructive possession"?
     
  5. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,606
    Location:
    Arizona
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,734
    Location:
    CAAZ

    But it says:

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

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,606
    Location:
    Arizona
    ""....use of tools or the replacement of parts.""

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

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    298
    Location:
    Arizona
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    McCain does not vote on the laws for the state of Arizona.
     
  11. 2ifbyC

    2ifbyC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    298
    Location:
    Arizona
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Michigan & New Mexico
    .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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,056
    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?

    TCB
     
  14. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,606
    Location:
    Arizona
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,734
    Location:
    CAAZ

    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 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,593
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,810
    Location:
    northern california
    I think that falls through the loop hole of "and that is designed to use fixed cartridges"
     
  20. kozak6

    kozak6 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    980
    Location:
    Arizona
    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.
     
  21. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,810
    Location:
    northern california
    Fixed cartridge in legalese is meant to differentiate it from guns which are loaded with separate bullets, powder and primer/priming compound.

    So that would mean cartridges with the propellent contained in a case capped with a bullet at one end and a primer at the other, which would be loaded into the chamber as a single unit
     
  22. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,593
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Ammunition generally comes in three flavors, fixed, semi-fixed and loose.
    Fixed - cartridge made complete of case, powder, primer and projectile in one moveable unit.
    Semi-fixed - projectile loaded into a breech ahead of bagged powder charges, usually with a separate primer set into the breechblock. Most commonly found in heavy artillery.
    Loose - loose powder poured into a fixed chamber, not bagged of other wise contained, generally found in black powder/muzzle loading firearms.

    That's the definitions as I remember them from Gunners' Mate A School a few years back.
     
  23. BBQJOE

    BBQJOE Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    736
    Location:
    ARIZONA
    I just got this today from Senator Flake:

    Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation.

    In the wake of the tragic December 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, there has been a surge in the introduction of congressional legislation attempting to address gun violence. A ban on assault weapons, restrictions on ammunition and magazines, and increased background check requirements have all been proposed.

    As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I do not believe that our society needs more laws restricting gun ownership. What we really need is to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, while ensuring that those who break existing laws are fully prosecuted.

    To that end, I support more effective and broader background checks for those purchasing firearms. For example, the state of Arizona has more than 120,000 records of mentally ill individuals barred from buying guns – but Arizona has not shared those records with the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which checks the names and records of would-be gun buyers to determine if they are disqualified from receiving firearms. At the same time, it is incumbent upon lawmakers to ensure that those eligible to buy guns can do so without untimely delays. I therefore am opposed to universal background checks on private sales, which would be extremely costly and apply to private transfers between family members, friends, neighbors, and even firearms passed down through wills.

    Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at flake.senate.gov .
     
  24. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,593
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Got the same one.
    Also, today is the last day for any of the introduced bills to be heard in their originating committee. If they are not heard, they are dead - not one anti-rights bill is scheduled for a hearing, from a fast check of ALIS. Four pro-rights bills did get past the first hearing.
     
  25. Lennyjoe

    Lennyjoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,065
    Location:
    Southwestern Ohio
    I got the same response from Flake as well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page