Ricky Duncan has found a lot of interesting Arizona laws for his friends at the Libertarian Party. According to Ricky because of these records at the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 before Arizona became a state it is legal to carry a concealed weapon. Thats because the makers of the Arizona constitution voted that Arizona DID NOT have the right to regulate concealed weapons.

While the Arizona Government has ignored the constition and passed ARS 13-3103 which makes concealed weapons illegal Ricky says this law is unconstitional.

Ricky says that if you do carry concealed weapons filing this document may not prevent you from getting arrested, but it may get the charges dropped once you get to court.

1. Fill out this document.
2. Have it notarized. This is a MUST!
3. File this document with the COUNTY RECORDER in the county you live in. This is a MUST! This step is used to FORCE the courts to admit the document as EVIDENCE
4. If your stopped by the police for carrying a concealed weapon show them this document. This step is also used to FORCE the courts to admit the document as EVIDENCE in your trial. This is a MUST!

   If the police officer obeys his duty to defend the constitution he will not arrest you because the constitution does not give the state the power to regulate concealed weapons. But don't count on it. Most cops would not know what the Arizona Constitution was if it punched them in the face.

5. If you are arrested for having a concealed weapon thats when this document can help. Since you filed the document with the COUNTY RECORDER makes it a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, which can be interduced into your trial.

   And if you showed this document to the arresting cop it is also EVIDENCE that can be used in your trial.

   This document will be used to show that the Arizona Constitution doesn't allow the state to regulate concealed weapons. Judges often will not let jurors look at laws. If at your trial you tried to show the jury the Arizona Constition and the stuff in this document the judge probably would not allow it. By filing the document with the COUNTY RECORDER and making it a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, this forces the judge to let the jury see this document in your trial

6. The next step is when the prosecutor finds out your saying that the CONCELED WEAPONS LAWS are UNCONSTIONAL, and have a document that the judge can't keep the jury from seeing will may cause him to drop the charges because he won't want to run the risk that Arizona's concealed weapons laws being declared UNCONSTITIONAL. This document has only been tested once and thats what happened. That was case xxxxxxxx

   Currently (Jan 2002) Tim McDermit was arrested for having a concealed weapon. Tim is testing the use of this document. I will post the results when the case is over. Dec 21, 2002 Tim McDermit says his case was thrown out and the judge said the part of the law that deals with carrying concealed weapons in fanny packs is vague and there for unconstitional. (But the rest of the concealed weapons law is still on the books in Arizona). I guess Tim's case didn't get into the use of this document.

Conceled Weapons Carry Document

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?

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS ONE OF OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

We hold these rights not as citizens of the United States or citizens of the state of Arizona, but so to speak, in spite of the United States and the state of Arizona. We hold our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS against these Governments by as good a title as we bold them against the world.

Richard Lee Duncan (602)488-6210
Phoenix, Arizona

MAGRUDER'S AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
ALLYN AND BACON, INC.
RIVISED BY WILLIAM A. McCLENAGHAN
COPYRIGHT 1968, BY MARY MAGRUDER SMITH
PAGE 185

... Public opinion is supposed to serve as the principal guiding force behind public policy in the United States. But its power is tempered. Our system of constitutional government is not designed to give, unrestricted play to public opinion-and especially it is not designed to give such to majority opinion. The doctrines of separation 'of powers and of checks and balances, and the many guarantees of civil rights in our Constitution, are intended to protect minority interests against the possible excess of majority action.

THIS DECLARATION OF INTENT WAS AUTHORED BY RICHARD LEE DUNCAN AND IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED FOR INDIVIDUAL USE.

Courtesy of

Richard Lee Duncan

Arizona Constitution Art. II §2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent to the governed, and are established to protect arid maintain individual rights

They refused to file the document for mike

See also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I, ______________________________, now domiciled in the County of ________________, State of Arizona, hereby accept, without bias, the intent of Article II, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution, determined by a vote of the Constitutional Convention [25 November 1910], granting the State of Arizona no power or authority to regulate my right to bear arms (openly or concealed), I hereby declare my intent to exercise this right in defense of self or the state, without the impairment of a state-issued permit. This declaration is made public as a courtesy to all peace officers in recognition that ignorance of these facts could jeopardize their bonds.

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?

SECTION 32: The right of the individual citizens to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

_____________________________________________________________   ______________
             (Signature)                                            (Date)
State of Arizona, County of _________________________________

sworn and subscribed before me, this _______ day of _________

by __________________________________________________________
                                          Notary Public

We do not believe these "rejected amendments" support Defendants' argument that the framers of the Arizona Constitution intended Article II, section 26 to confer an absolute right to bear arms. Defendants assert that because the second "rejected amendment" expressly would have authorized the legislature to regulate the right to bear arms, we should infer from its rejection that the delegates intended to make this right absolute. We disagree for two reasons. First, this amendment would have expanded the scope of an individual's right to bear arms. Instead of allowing a person to bear arms for defense only, the second "rejected amendment" would have allowed a person to bear arms for "safety and defense." Id. at 678 (emphasis added). Second, this amendment would have entirely eliminated the second clause of the proposed right to bear arms. This clause provides: "but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Arizona Constitution, Article II, § 26. The framers could have rejected this amendment because this clause was deleted. For both of these reasons, the second "rejected amendment" provides little, if any, support for Defendants' position. Likewise, when balanced against the clear evidence to the contrary, the remaining "rejected 'amendment" offers little evidence that the framers intended to make Arizona's right to bear arms absolute.

First, we note that Article II, section 26 itself provides not an absolute right, but instead a qualified one in which "[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired ....” (Emphasis added.) Its plain wording demonstrates that the right is not absolute and implies that some qualification is permissible. Dano, 166 Ariz. at 325, 802 P.2d at 1024. Indeed, its very language suggests that people do not have the right to bear arms in any manner and under all circumstances in Arizona. Id. at 323, 802 P.2d at 1022. Second, Defendants' denial that the delegates at Arizona's Constitutional Convention could have understood the light to bear arms as a qualified right ignores the state of the law at that time. Immediately before and after the adoption of Arizona's Constitution, carrying concealed weapons was prohibited. In fact, the 1913 Arizona Penal Code mirrored the 1901 Penal Code of the Arizona Territory, providing "[ilt shall be unlawful for any person (except a peace officer in actual service and discharge of his duty), to have or carry concealed on or about his person, any pistol or other firearm .... " Arizona Revised Statutes, Penal Code, Title XII, § 426 (1913); Revised Statutes of Arizona Territory, Penal Code, Title XI, § 382 (1901). Defendants fail to reconcile these statutes with the first "rejected amendment." Indeed, they do not consider that the framers could have rejected this amendment to avoid redundancy, or' because they deemed it to be unnecessary. Not only is the historical context of the first "rejected amendment" open to several interpretations, but the interpretation argued by Defendants is not the most persuasive.