Homeless in Arizona

Ricky Duncan's concealed carry research surfaces again

  Many years ago my Libertarian friend Ricky Duncan discovered that the Arizona Constitution gives people the right to carry concealed weapons with no questions asked.

Here is a link to that web site.

That is despite the fact that until recently Arizona had a law on the books making it illegal to carry concealed weapons.

According to Ricky Duncan that law was unconstitutional.

What Ricky Duncan discovered was that at the Arizona Territorial Convention the debated and voted on whether the state of Arizona should be allowed to prevent people from carrying concealed weapons and voted against it.

This is the debate Ricky Duncan discovered in the Arizona Territorial Convention.

The Records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910

Pages 678 and 679. Edited by: John S. Goff (C) The Supreme Court of Arizona
Mr. Chairman: Are there any objections or corrections to Section 32?

Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of Section 32. I never in all my life found it necessary to carry a six-shooter and I have passed through nearly all the scencs (sic) and experiences of this wild and unsettled country. Carrying arms is dangerous. It is a very dangerous thing to oneself and to one's associates and should not be permitted under any circumstances. I have seen lives lost and innocent blood spilled just through the carrying of arms, concealed weapons under one's coat or shirt. It is most dangerous and vile; a practice that should never be permitted except in times of war and never in times of peace. Think of it; carrying a six shooter or a knife or some other terrible arm of defense, and then in a moment of heated passion using that weapon. I do not believe in it and I move to strike out that section.

Mr. Webb: I second that motion for I agree with the gentleman from Maricopa that it is a pernicious thing and should not be included in this bill. I, too, in all my experiences, have never seen the time when it was necessary to carry concealed weapons except in times of Indian troubles, and have had many and varied experiences, in cow camps. I have been in many places where some might deem it necessary to come armed, but I did not, nor do I believe it necessary to do so now. We are no longer a frontier country, and if we did not need arms in the early days of pioneering in this country, we do not now, and I second the motion.

Mr. Crutchfield: I move to amend by inserting after the word "impair" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime."

Mr. Baker: That is all right and I second the motion.

Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out all of Section 32 and substituting the following in lieu thereof: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for their safety and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Mr. Feeney: I second that motion.

Mr. Chairman: The question comes up on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cochise, Mr. Parsons, to strike out Section 32, and insert in lieu thereof his amendment. Those in favor of this motion answer "aye", opposed "nay". The motion is lost. The question now comes up on the amendment offered by Mr. Crutchfield to insert after the word "impaired" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime." Those in favor of this motion answer "aye", opposed "nay". The secretary will call the roll. Roll Call showed 22 "Ayes" 23 "Nays".

Mr. Chairman: The motion is lost, and Section 32 will stand approved as read unless there are other amendments. Are there any objections to Section 33?

Feb 14, 2013 New Times article

Now it is kind of interesting because this week the Phoenix New Times which is a socialist leaning gun grabbing newspaper wrote an article title:
'Til Death Do Us Part: Arizona's Dangerous Love Affair with Guns
In that article they talked about the debate that is above and also on Ricky Duncan's concealed carry web page.

This is what the New Times article said:

But a minority of Arizonans at the convention didn't want to allow unfettered gun rights. Contradicting part of the popular image of the Wild West, a delegate named Baker moved to strike the pro-gun text completely, Tufte writes.

"I never, in all my life, found it necessary to carry a six-shooter, and I have passed through nearly all the scenes and experiences of this wild and unsettled country," Baker is quoted as having said. "I have seen lives lost and innocent blood spilled just through the carrying of arms — concealed weapons — under one's coat or shirt. It is most dangerous and vile, a practice that should never be permitted except in times of war and never in time of peace."

No record of a vote on that motion was recorded, but two votes were taken later that evening on separate motions that tried to put limits on Arizona's gun rights. One specifically would have called on lawmakers to regulate gun rights, while another wished to give lawmakers the right to "regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime." Both motions failed.

I suspect the gun grabbers at the New Times are lying in the sentence when they say:
But a minority of Arizonans at the convention didn't want to allow unfettered gun rights.
Because after all at the convention they did NOT vote to allow the state of Arizona to regulate concealed weapons.

I don't know if the folks at the New Times are lying when they said:

No record of a vote on that motion was recorded
I know in Ricky Duncan blurb he says a vote WAS taken.

Not only do I know that is what Ricky Duncan said, but I also went down to the law library at the Arizona State Capital and dug up the old musty books from 100+ years ago and read thru what Ricky Duncan discovered myself.

Despite fact that I was screwed over they the Arizona Libertarian Party when some of them started spreading lies around that I was a government snitch I still like Ricky Duncan and am quite impressed with some of the things he did to throw a money wrench into some of the things our local government tyrants are doing.

I have never been told exactly what the lies are these phoney baloney Libertarian hypocrites have been spreading about me. The jerks have never bothered to tell me.

I found out about it about 12 years ago on the day the American Empire started bombing Afghanistan when Ernie Hancock told me that David Dorn was spreading lies calling me a government snitch.

I like to call the Arizona Libertarian Party the

"George Bush Libertarian Party"
That's because some Arizona Libertarians seem to be hypocrites and don't believe in the NIFF principle and instead think they are like George W. Bush and consider anything they say the God given truth and are not open to debate on it.

When I found out about the lies I said they were lies.

But the hypocrites in the Arizona Libertarian Party who are spreading the lies have never bother to even tell me what the lies are.

Nor have they ever given me the opportunity to defend myself against the lies.

And that is why I call the Arizona Libertarian Party the "George Bush Wing" of the Libertarian Party.

 
Homeless in Arizona

stinking title