Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: part of concealed weapons law is unconstitional

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ... Dear Mike, I am answering this e-mail on the public board, as it does concern Arizonans in general. I looked through the on-line opinions of both
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 8 7:04 PM
      >sorry my hard drive crashed so i cant
      >send you a copy of the email but the
      >scoop on tim mc dermitts arrest for
      >having a concealed weapon in his fanny
      >pack was ruled unconstitional by a
      >judge.
      >
      >the basic law was something like its
      >legal to keep a gun in a suitcase or
      >pack and since the law doesnt define
      >the details it should be legal to
      >keep a gun concealed in a fanny pack
      >because it could be defined as a
      >suit case.
      >
      >the email said the government was
      >appealing the verdict.
      >
      >mike
      >
      >--
      >"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
      >when the government fears the people, there is liberty "
      > Thomas Jefferson

      Dear Mike,

      I am answering this e-mail on the public board, as it does concern
      Arizonans in general. I looked through the on-line opinions of
      both divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals, and it does not appear
      this opinion has yet been posted (it is also possible it was a
      memorandum decision, in which case it will not be posted and is
      not considered to set a precedent). You have, in any case, addressed
      my confusion with another case that was decided by the Court of
      Appeals Division One several years ago, also involving a handgun
      carried in a fanny pack.

      The misconduct with weapons statute, ARS 13-3102, includes within it
      the general prohibition of carrying a deadly weapon other than an
      ordinary pocket knife concealed on one's person or concealed in
      a vehicle (ARS 13-3102[A][1 and 2]) without a state-issued permit.
      Further down in paragraph F (ARS 13-3102[F]), three exceptions are
      provided: carrying in a holster or scabbard which is wholly or partly
      visible, carrying in a "case designed for carrying weapons", the case
      being wholly or partly visible, or carrying in luggage. Nowhere in
      13-3102 or in the definition statute for the weapons offenses, 13-3101,
      are "case designed for carrying weapons" or "luggage" further defined,
      so if there is ambiguity in either, it's apparently up to the courts to
      decide.

      In the earlier case (sometime in the mid 1990s if I recall correctly),
      a person was arrested for carrying a pistol concealed in a fanny pack
      and was convicted in Superior or JOP Court. That person appealed the
      conviction on the grounds that a fanny pack was supposedly a "case
      designed for carrying weapons". The Court of Appeals ruled that a
      fanny pack was designed for carrying a wide variety of objects, not
      specifically weapons and upheld the conviction. I believe the state
      Supreme Court refused to review that decision.

      This case apparently rests upon whether the Court of Appeals and the
      state Supreme Court believe a fanny pack to be "luggage". Somehow I
      suspect they won't, but this will be interesting to follow. If you
      can, please tell me in which court this verdict was issued and what
      the case number is (I assume the case is State v. McDermitt).

      Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I have not passed bar, and I do not
      have a law degree. Any opinions I express on matters of law are
      the opinions of a layman and do not constitute legal advice.

      --Kevin Walsh
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.