Arkansas HB 1408 - Open Carry

[Outlaw Man]

Bill info

We've had overwhelming support for prior pro-gun legislation this session, so hopefully this will keep the trend going. We still need to contact our state congresscritters, though.

Beebe was opposed to open carry two years ago, so he likely needs some work, too. His response was typical "streets running with blood" propaganda.

 

[baz]

I've started to read it. At 17 pages, it will take a while to digest. Two quick observations.

1) It continually references a "license to carry." Is that how "open carry" works in other states? I presumed open carry meant the right to carry without a license (at all). Am I wrong on that? (I do realize that this may be a strategic decision to get anything at all.

2) I noted that the list of prohibited places was more or less lifted from the current list of prohibited places for concealed carry, except that the language regarding churches stands as it did prior to SB71. Was that intentional, or an oversight? I'm gonna guess intentional, in that it is one thing for churches to whether or not to all concealed carry (i.e. SB71, now law), and another thing to allow open carry "licenses" to carry openly. I.e., it would set up a situation where a church may have said "no" to concealed carry, only to find themselves subject to open carry, so they just left open carry out of the church altogether. I suppose I could live with that.

More, maybe, after more reading.

 

[Outlaw Man]

I just re-read that part about prohibited places. Looks kind of like they're putting them back as a prohibited place to all license holders. If so, that is unacceptable. The church should be able to decide for itself. Period.

Anybody else see the bill that way

ETA: just noticed two of the co-sponsors voted against SB71. Seems fishy.

 

[Spats McGee]

From my admittedly cursory reading of the bill, it looks like this bill would allow for (what I call) "permitted open carry." IOW, if you have a handgun license, you would be able to carry either openly or concealed. If you do not have a license, you may not carry. However, my reading was cursory enough that I must encourage everyone to read it on their own.

ETA: baz, the term "open carry" simply means "unconcealed," or "out in the open." The issue of permits or licenses is a separate issue.

 

[razorback2003]

There are too many prohibited locations. Cut that out as a part of this bill.

 

[baz]

I just re-read that part about prohibited places. Looks kind of like they're putting them back as a prohibited place to all license holders. If so, that is unacceptable. The church should be able to decide for itself. Period.

Anybody else see the bill that way

ETA: just noticed two of the co-sponsors voted against SB71. Seems fishy.

I don't know if they "put it back in" or forgot to incorporate the changes from SB71. I have some inquires in to try to find out about that. It is disturbing that two of the representatives who voted against SB71 are now sponsors of HB1408. I am going to contact them directly.

 

[baz]

I got two emails this evening, both assuring me that the prohibition against church carry will be changed to incorporate the language from SB71/Act 67. One even said that it was done this afternoon, but there's no notice of it yet on the legislature web site.

There are too many prohibited locations. Cut that out as a part of this bill.

It is the same list of prohibited places currently applied to concealed carry. In fact, all the law is really doing is taking the current statutory framework for concealed carry and converting it to allow licensees to carry open or concealed.

There is no way that part is getting cut. Could it be shortened? I doubt it. Most of the prohibited places are governmental. An ideal law lets gives every property owner the choice whether to allow weapons on their premises. In effect, the law is the way government is making its choice. Most private property owners are free to choose. Bars and athletic events, where (presumably in the case of athletic events) alcohol is present, are natural prohibitions. (The exclusion of "restaurants" where alcohol is served is rather enlightened; Tennessee only recently caught up with us in that, I believe.) Churches are now free to choose, though personally I don't think churches should be on the list at all; as private property they'd still have the right to prohibit, though they'd have to post, but that would be okay by me. Parades? That one I don't get. Where federal law prohibits is a natural prohibition, though redundant, and not really necessary. Airports? I don't really get that either, since federal law keeps them from getting past security (presumably). Why do they need to be kept out of the rest of the terminal?

So there are a couple of places on the list that could be plausibly disputed. But if the bill passes with the current list of prohibited places intact, it will still be a huge victory. I'm not optimistic. But I'm naturally pessimistic about optimal or rational behavior coming from the political class these days. The current legislative session has had a couple of nice surprises for me. Maybe there's hope for this one.

 

[Outlaw Man]

That's great news!

On the question of prohibited places, I'd love to see them all (or mostly, at least) removed. In the very least, the penalty for carrying in a marked business and similar places should be specifically listed as trespassing rather than a gun crime, especially with our slightly ambiguous sign law.

However, I don't see any way a sweeping reform bill will pass. Too many people have their pet projects or special interests that will make them vote against it. If you add too many in to one bill it will never pass (similar to Obama trying to pass 1000 pages of economic reform). If you do it incrementally, it stands a better chance to pass. It may be a slower process, but at least we're getting somewhere.

Of course, that works the other way, too, so we have to remain vigilant. Feinstein's bill will never pass because it's too much at once. A bill just to limit magazine capacity or just to male universal background checks has a much better chance. It takes advantage of the "that doesn't effect me" voters.

 

[baz]

The amended bill is now available.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Great!! I can now fully support it.