local

From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

Obtaining concealed weapons permit takes 'a lunch break and $100'

CCWs still available, but not required for much concealed carry

I’m a 22-year-old woman who has never touched a gun in her life, but obtaining a concealed weapons permit in Arizona took me little more than a lunch break and $100.
have your say   

12 comments on this story

1
2 comments
Apr 20, 2012, 7:45 am
-6 +10

So Kellie, you have no handgun experience and you lied on your application.  Doesn’t that make you a felon now?  I’m sorry that you don’t agree with a law that expects people to be honest and tell the truth.  Of course, no one will do that.  Unless it comes to unemployment benefits or welfare.  Then people don’t need to prove anything.  I hope an Officer reads this, sees that you lied on your application, revokes your license and you get convicted of a felony.

2
8 comments
Apr 20, 2012, 10:02 am
-6 +2

I don’t see how you can say she lied on the application. All it requires is a class and she took the class. If the state was concerned about this they’d regulate the classes better or provide the classes themselves.

3
2 comments
Apr 20, 2012, 10:14 am
-1 +6

Actually, the law states:
6. Has ever demonstrated competence with a firearm as prescribed by subsection N of this section and provides adequate documentation that the person has satisfactorily completed a training program or demonstrated competence with a firearm in any state or political subdivision in the United States.

And the class she took stated that it was not for beginners, it was for people who are familiar with firearms.

4
1770 comments
Apr 20, 2012, 12:51 pm
-2 +11

Well, the easier it becomes to obtain a permit, the closer we get to once again respecting our Second Amendment rights in this country.

5
1 comments
Apr 20, 2012, 6:09 pm
-2 +10

Kellie, does it not strike you as odd that you would want to obtain a permit to carry a firearm without knowing anything about it? Writing about something you know nothing about is protected by the First Amendment. Your right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. It would be to your own advantage to educate yourself in pursuit of either.

6
1 comments
Apr 20, 2012, 7:27 pm
-1 +7

Interesting. Ms. Mejdrich, you have now publicly admitted that you lied on your application for a concealed weapons permit. Congratulations! Since it was on an official government form and for your benefit, you committed perjury. Yes, a judge can fine you or put you in jail for doing this.
As a journalist, I’m sure you’re used to not following the rules. Those are for the little people. Foolish people! However… you might want to learn to use and carry a pistol. Just in case you run into fellow lawbreakers.

7
1 comments
Apr 22, 2012, 2:57 pm
-1 +1

So now you have a concealed handgun license.  And you lied about having experience with guns.  Congratulations.  Did you do the same with your drivers license?  How about your “journalist” license?  Oh, that’s right, our “old, tired” Constitution recognizes the “freedom of the Press”.  Well, if it were a “living” Constitution, maybe “journalist” would require a government issued license?  You know, with proof a person could spell, read/write English, have a college degree in “journalism”?  I mean, I am a “journalist” since this may be published on a “Press” website.

But I havn’t passed a “background check”.  You don’t even know who I am.  And I could invent/edit “news” that could result in riots, like ABC and MSNBC did with the Florida case.

Yah, it’s time to scale back the “freedom” we have with “freedom of the press”, before we end up with mob rule and having to use our RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

8
3 comments
Apr 22, 2012, 5:55 pm
-1 +1

Miss Mejdrich interviewed me extensively for this article,  in 3 conversations over an hour last week.
As an instructor, I asked her if she could use deadly force on someone who had broken into her home and meant her harm, if he did not have a weapon. She did not know the answer.
Rules on when you can use deadly force, especially in your home, are something you do not forget in 2 months. That is prima facia evidence that she committed perjury on her application, on familiarity with the laws.
There is also no such thing as a 1-hour NRA course which could lead to a permit. If DPS does not pull her permit, it is malfeasant.
I told her prepeatedly that NRA only certifies instructors to teach THEIR courses - and there is no one hour course.That did not make it into the article.
This report is what the Society of Professional Journalists would say, has a “framing bias,” in that it presents an imbalanced picture.
As a journalist and talk show host, I expect better out of the media.
Respectfully,
Charles Heller
CCW Instructor
Communications Director
AzCDL
Host, America Armed & Free Radio
AM 1030 KVOI Tucson

9
3 comments
Apr 22, 2012, 5:59 pm
-1 +1

She lied on her application because she does not know the most basic rules on the use of force, as demonstrated to me in an interview by phone before this article was published. She dows not know if she can use deadly force on a burglar in her home if he lacks a weapon.
Further, she did not demonstrate proficiency with a weapon. She lied on an official form.@Sunny

10
1 comments
Apr 23, 2012, 8:02 am
-1 +4

As someone new to guns, I was shocked by some of the class content, like when Denis advised us to shoot first and deal with the consequences later in the event of a home invasion.

The alternative in this scenario is to either have the police, who show up after the fact, draw a chalk circle around her body, or at best, give her the address of a rape counselor.

11
1770 comments
Apr 23, 2012, 8:32 am
-0 +0

Charles Heller got up on a soapbox and yelled:

     
     
She lied on her application because she does not know the most basic rules on the use of force, as demonstrated to me in an interview by phone before this article was published. She dows not know if she can use deadly force on a burglar in her home if he lacks a weapon.
Further, she did not demonstrate proficiency with a weapon. She lied on an official form.@Sunny

Well, to be fair, this constantly changes with time and geography. I don’t even know what it is anymore.

I had to deal with a home invasion once. To spare myself legal persecution I won’t go into details. I will just say that I made the invader regret it, and I believe the perp was sufficiently punished and rehabilitated, all without costing the taxpayers any money.

Now, I will say this, also…unless you’re in one of the stupid states like Florida or California, a prosecutor would be VERY hard pressed to put together a jury that would actually punish someone for defending his/her home. That said, very few prosecutors would waste time and resources bringing such a case to trial even if it were illegal.

My point…defend your home. Nothing in this world is more important than your health and safety and that of your loved ones. If there are consequences, deal with them later. And, as previously pointed out…much better than the alternative.

12
3 comments
Apr 23, 2012, 8:43 am
-0 +3

As a CCW instructor for 17 years, I greatly doubt whether any instructor ever said “shoot first and deal with the consequences later.”  I strongly suspect that it is a gross overstatement of the actual words of the instructor.

— 30 —

{/exp:weblog:entries}

Best in Internet Exploder