By David Morse
Guest Columnist
Published on Sunday, May 2, 2010 9:16 AM MST

Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1108, a bill that decriminalizes the carrying of concealed weapons in the state of Arizona, on April 16. This bill will become law 90 days after the Legislature closes.

Arizona will become the third state, following Vermont and Alaska, allowing concealed carry without a permit. Arizona will be the first state with a large urban population to enact such legislation.

What does this mean? In short, any person 21 years of age or older legally qualified to own a firearm may carry a firearm in concealment, where not restricted, without fear of arrest or prosecution. The current system for issue of concealed weapons permits will remain in place. Persons wishing to join the more than 154,000 Arizonans who already have concealed weapons permits will have that option.

Is this a good thing? In a free society can there be too much freedom? I predict many people will drop pistols in their pockets and tuck revolvers into their waistbands “because they can.” After a month or so, when the novelty is gone and the added weight and bother of carrying a chunk of iron sets in, many of those guns will go back into drawers and safes.

Allow me to offer one bit of advice. Guns are deadly weapons. Carrying a deadly weapon incurs many risks and imposes many responsibilities. This is not something to be done lightly without thought or consideration. Carry responsibly!

Many restrictions will still exist. One cannot carry weapons on private property (or any property for that matter) posted “No Guns Allowed,” on national monuments, Indian reservations, school grounds, military reservations and other places.

Be aware that the law requires any person carrying a concealed weapon to inform a police officer about the weapon if asked. Also, the weapon must be surrendered to a police officer, for temporary holding, upon request.

And just because no law forbids carrying a concealed weapon, that does not mean there are no laws against improper use or display of firearms. I foresee a rash of “misconduct with firearms” or “endangerment with firearms” arrests (both class-6 felonies) in certain parts of the state not known as gun-friendly.

Obtaining an Arizona concealed weapons permit is still a good idea. Reciprocity is a big factor. At this time, 29 states will honor your Arizona CCW — similar to their recognition of your Arizona driver’s license. Without a permit, your “right to carry” ends at the Arizona state line.

Last year, Arizona allowed permit holders to carry their concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that served alcohol, provided the establishment had not posted a notice they would not allow carry on their premises and the person consumed no alcohol. Those without a permit can be issued citations and their firearms confiscated if they carry weapons into an establishment serving alcohol, whether the premises are posted or not.

People with a valid Arizona CCW may purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer without being subjected to a federal background check at the time of purchase. The FFL dealer notes the CCW number on the 4473 form in lieu of making a National Instant Check System call, and the buyer takes the gun home with him.

About one out of five calls to NICS results in a “delay” status for the purchase. The buyer cannot take the gun with him at that time. A delay means NICS needs time to check something found in its initial computer-based background check. Maybe there are several “John Smiths” with criminal backgrounds, or the buyer has an arrest from 15 years back and the fact no charges were filed is not noted; maybe a restraining order in another state was issued to a “John Smith.”

There can be dozens of reasons. Many have obtained CCWs simply because their names are common, and they get tired of delays every time they try to purchase a firearm. Also, there are no federal computer-based records of the purchase.

And last but not least: training. There is no such thing as too much training. The eight hours spent in the AZ CCW course is but a touch on the myriad and complex tactical, legal and moral issues inherent to carrying a deadly weapon.

Having the permit carries one more advantage: respect. Members of law enforcement recognize that those who have obtained a permit to carry are honest citizens who have made an effort to educate themselves about firearms and related laws.

When an officer or deputy runs your name in a routine traffic stop, the fact that you have been issued a CCW permit is displayed on the patrol car’s computer screen. Most cops will be much more cordial and relaxed with a person they know has a CCW because they know he is not a felon and is possibly honest by nature. How many criminals spend time going to classes and getting permits?

The cost of an AZ CCW permit (valid for five years) is $60. The reciprocity, avoidance of NICS delays, training and respect that come with a CCW permit are priceless.

by Catherine Holland

Posted on February 2, 2010 at 7:02 AM

Updated Tuesday, Feb 2 at 8:30 AM

******

PHOENIX — Arizona adults who want to carry a concealed weapon might not have to undergo a background check or any special training in the future.

The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a measure that would allow exactly that. The vote was four to three along party lines.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa. The Republican says the measure is designed preserve the constitutional right to bear arms. It’s also meant to cut the legal red tape that many say prevents law-abiding people from protecting themselves.

Opponents of the bill are concerned that allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit would lead to more violence.

Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police lobbyist John Thomas says the measure would “take Arizona back into Wild-West carry with no consideration for officer safety.”

Right now it is legal to an adult to carry a gun as long as it’s clearly visible.

Those who want to carry concealed are required not only to have a permit, but to have that permit with them whenever they are carrying. The permit holder must also show the document to law-enforcement officers upon request.

To get that permit, a person must undergo a minimum of eight hours of training by an authorized instructor and submit fingerprints.

The bill on the table, SB1102, would remove that training requirement. It would also remove the mandate that a person carrying a concealed weapon also carry a CCW permit.

According to the Department of Public Safety, processing time for permits is currently running at about 75 days. In addition, because Arizona is a “shall issue” state, permits cannot be denied as long as the applicant meets the statutory requirements.

DPS statistics show that as of Jan. 31, there were nearly 150,000 active permits, more than 1,700 suspended permits and 1,002 revoked permits. More than 78,000 of those permits are held in Maricopa County.

The largest single group of those with concealed-weapons permits is white men between the ages of 60 and 69, followed by white men between the ages of 50 and 59.

The measure passed Monday, SB 1102, will go to the full Senate after a legal review. A House committee is slated to hear a similar bill on Wednesday.

Current statutes
Arizona Revised Statute 13-3112
Arizona Administrative Rules R13-9-101 through R13-9-603

July 30, 2009

Landmark Arizona Self-Defense Case Gets New Life

The Arizona Court of Appeals has thrown out the conviction of Harold Fish and chastised the judge who tried the case. Mr. Fish has been released from custody into his family’s joyfully waiting arms, while he awaits final resolution of his case.

Fish was the retired school teacher who shot a man who charged at him swinging his arms and yelling threats in a forest outside of Payson. Fish was convicted of second degree murder in 2006, in a trial many thought was grossly unfair, and has spent the intervening three years in an Arizona state prison. He had no prior criminal record of any kind. The Appeals Court ruled, among other things, that Fish should have been allowed to introduce evidence of his homeless attacker’s violent past and the vicious histories of the man’s dogs which triggered the event.

The case was tried under an old abusive standard, quietly slipped into law without review in 1996 by state prosecutors. This forced a self-defense claimant to prove that actions were taken in a justifiable way — that is, guilty unless proven innocent, a terrible corruption of the legal system. That law was changed by state gun-rights activists in 2006 back to the former, proper standard. Now, if a person claims self defense, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person acted without justification, or the classic American standard of innocent unless proven guilty. Prosecutors were not happy with the change, and fought it every step of the way, an indicator of how vigilant people must be against deliberate government abuse.

This case outraged many rights activists, and alerted the state to the tyrannical changes that had been quietly made to self-defense law in Arizona. It also provided significant motivation for legislative changes that brought about the Castle Doctrine law, and a reversal of the corrupted burden of proof process, to the proper status it has today. Unfortunately for Mr. Fish, he suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune through no intention of his own. He merely acted to protect himself against a violent attack in the wilderness.

The new law was supposed to be retroactive, to cover cases like Mr. Fish and others, but the courts decided it did not apply. Back to the legislature, and a clarification was enacted this year, making the correct innocent-unless-proven-guilty standard effective for all cases pending when the 2006 law was passed (which would include the Fish case).

Fish’s situation remains uncertain however, with democrat state attorney general Terry Goddard vowing publicly to review the case. There will be no retrial, according to attorney Michael P. Anthony, who has followed the case closely. If Goddard convinces the Arizona Supreme Court to take review AND the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals, then Fish will have to serve the remainder of his sentence, unless clemency is granted. If the Supreme Court reviews and doesn’t reverse, Fish remains free. The best situation is if Goddard decides not to pursue the case against significant public sympathy for the former school teacher.

One More New Arizona Gun Law — Nine Altogether

If you missed my initial update, Arizona enacted eight changes to gun laws in 2009, all of them with a pro-rights flavor — and some particularly excellent, like the new “defensive display” law. They are posted at the top three links here: http://www.gunlaws.com/agogup.htm. With the help of Gary Christensen of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Assn. (http://www.asrpa.com), a top resource in this state, I’ve identified one more:

Restoration of rights for people deemed incompetent.
HB 2532, CH 145, Adds §13-924, amends §§13-3101, 32-2612, 36-540.

In new section 13-924, a person who was found to be a danger to self or others or who was acutely or gravely disabled as defined (§36-540, concerning involuntary treatment, referred to in this update as “incompetent” for brevity), may apply to court to have the right to possess a firearm restored. The person must show clear and convincing evidence that the person is no longer incompetent. The court must set a hearing for the applicant to make the case, where psychological or psychiatric evidence must be presented. The state can argue that the person should remain a prohibited possessor. A successful outcome for the applicant only restores the right to possess a firearm, and it “does not apply to and has no effect on any of the other rights or benefits the person receives.” This leaves us to wonder if the person can carry, buy, sell, transfer, practice or use the gun for hunting, self defense or any other purpose, a very ambiguous state of affairs. The three other sections noted above are amended to accommodate a person whose rights were denied due to incompetence, if rights have been restored under §13-924.

Alan Korwin Friday, 17 July 2009

All anti-rights bills defeated, some pro-rights bills died

Waiting until the last possible moment, Arizona governor Jan Brewer on July 13 signed all eight gun-related bills enacted by the state legislature in 2009. Two crucial bills, Constitutional Carry and penalty reduction for discreet carry without a permit, failed passage at the last minute and didn’t make it to her desk. The eight bills signed into law, which will become effective on Sep. 30, 2009 (except SB 1242, effective immediately), are:

• HB 2569   Smuggling people for profit, involving a deadly weapon
• SB 1113   CCW in liquor-licensed places OK without drinking, unless no-gun signs
• SB 1088   Domestic violence protection extended to romantic or sexual partners
• SB 1168   Parking lots cannot ban firearms locked in vehicles, with exceptions
• SB 1242   Exemptions from CCW and more for more “proper authorities”
• SB 1243   Defensive display of a firearm in self defense defined and protected
• SB 1437   AZ High School Marksmanship Program instructor definition expanded
• SB 1449   Retroactive self-defense clarification (Harold Fish law)

At least 14 gun-related bills were introduced this year, with the few anti-rights bills repudiated early in the session and defeated. One other pro-rights bill died at the end, the effort to reduce required classes to three or four hours for people already well trained in gun use through military, police or private programs. Some 20 legislators walked out very late on the final session (which went all night and ended at 7:30 a.m.) stealing away votes that had been verbally committed and were needed for passage of that and the petty offense amendment for discreet carry without a permit. The pro-rights people were left with 30 votes, and needed 31 to pass the laws.

The entire session was run in a bizarre manner — no legislative work for months in the Senate while the Napolitano deficit was being resolved, then an impossibly crowded and rushed legislative calendar in the final few weeks, with no room for error, adjustment or contemplation. The procedures were a disgraceful humiliating embarrassment to good governance.

Constitutional Carry, which would have allowed law-abiding Arizonans to carry a firearm discreetly — with the same freedom they’ve had since statehood in 1912 to carry openly — got tied up in the Rules committee in the closing days of the session. A late amendment to the bill, which created a conflict with federal law, forced Rules to hold the bill and there wasn’t enough time left in the session to make the needed changes.

The amendment was added by Judiciary chairman Jonathan Paton (R-Tucson), normally a good supporter of RKBA, who insisted he wouldn’t hear the bill without the new language. The amendment criminalized smuggling guns across the Mexican border, which DPS wants even though it’s a federal matter. That carrot might have helped move the cart on Constitutional Carry, which DPS is basically against, but in the end scuttled the bill.

Following standard practice, this year’s changes will be produced as an insert and included with copies of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, posted on our website, and available as a formatted pdf file or plain text for downloading. This is a preliminary analysis for review and comment.

Summarizing this year’s changes:

43, 71, 79, 80 / SB 1113 / §§ 4-229, 4-244, 4-246, 11-441, 13-3102,
13-3112, 38-1102. Carry in restaurants for CCW permitees only

CCW-permit holders can carry in places licensed to serve alcohol, unless the places post official signs from the Dept. of Liquor Licenses banning entry to anyone with a firearm. The ban was written broadly enough to prohibit anyone from carrying, even on-duty police or employees, if signs are posted.

If access is not banned and you possess a firearm, you may not drink. If you enter you have an affirmative defense against prosecution (meaning you must prove your innocence) if you were not informed of the ban, the sign fell down, the sign was posted less than 30 days before you were charged, or you weren’t a resident of the state. The exemption for going in to seek aid in an emergency has been preserved, and you have permission to go in far enough to see if there’s a sign posted.

You can expect to see No Guns Allowed signs springing up all over the state, featuring official wording and an image of a gun inside a red circle with a slash through it. Drinking while carrying in a liquor-serving establishment, or carrying in such a place if it’s posted for no guns, is a class 3 misdemeanor.

The guns-in-restaurants bill also says: Members of a sheriff’s volunteer posse who have received specified training (AZPOST) can bear arms while on duty, with conditions. A U.S. law enforcement officer with 10 consecutive years of service and a special picture ID can carry concealed without a permit, and their most recent law-enforcement employer must issue the card on request. AZPOST-certified LEOs who volunteer for their agency’s reserve program are exempt from taking the CCW training program. Misconduct with weapons in an act of terrorism is raised to a class 2 felony. Note that terrorism is broadly defined (§13-2301) and this law could be applied beyond the common understanding of terrorism (e.g., a felony with a firearm intended to influence policy or affect the conduct of the state). Another extra guarantee against localities banning LEOs from carrying firearms has been added.

24 / SB 1088 / §13-3601 / Domestic violence expansion

Penalties for domestic-violence offenses, including restraining orders and firearms confiscations, can now be applied, in addition to problems between family members, to people who are or were in “a romantic or sexual relationship.” The law is a response to the case of a woman murdered by her boyfriend. A restraining order was unavailable because they weren’t married. It’s unclear, as always, how much a piece of paper from a court would have influenced a murderer. Now, people in a casual relationship have an enormously powerful weapon they can use on each other in the event of a quarrel — confiscation of any collection of arms and a ban on possession. Questions linger as to how much of a relationship qualifies, which the statute left ambiguous.

55, 70 / SB 1168 / §12-781 / Ban on prohibiting guns in parked vehicles

It’s unlawful for a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity (called the “responsible party” below for brevity) to create a policy or rule that prevents a person from lawfully transporting or storing any firearm in a privately owned motor vehicle if:

1 – the vehicle is locked or the firearm is in a locked compartment on a motorcycle;

2 – the firearm is not visible. Any attempt to do so is null, void, unenforceable and without legal effect.

The ban on gun bans in private vehicles doesn’t apply under four conditions:

1 – possession of the firearm is already banned under federal or state law;

2 – the vehicle is owned or leased by the responsible party
in which case the ban is at their discretion;

3 – the responsible party has a facility secured by a fence or other physical barrier, and also limits access by a guard or other security measure, and the responsible party
provides secure storage with ready access and retrieval, similar to the gun-locker rules for public buildings and events;

4 – compliance with this statute would violate another applicable federal or state law. Nuclear generating stations must comply with gun-locker requirements.

The parking area for a single-family detached residence is exempt from this law. Department of Defense contractors whose property is located wholly or partially on a military base are exempt from this law. A responsible party can provide an alternate parking facility close to the main facility, ban firearms at the main one, and allow them at the alternate facility, as long as they don’t charge any extra fee.

Anticipating possible legal challenges from large corporations or other property owners whose parking space is open to the public, the legislature included a six-point set of findings, rare in state bills, to clarify that:

1 – the state and federal Constitutions provide strong protection for the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense;

2 – the enjoyment of this right is impaired if people are deprived the right to keep arms in
their vehicles;

3 – people are deprived of their rights if firearms cannot be kept in their private vehicles;

4 – your locked private vehicle is private, not a public space, you have the right to furnish it any way you like that is legal to enhance your comfort, security, ease of movement and
enjoyment of liberty;

5 – parking lot operators are not unduly burdened by the presence of legally possessed property secured within the vehicle by its owner;

6 – this act is for the benefit and protection of people who choose to exercise and enforce their fundamental right to bear arms in self defense in their movements throughout this state, including in their personal motor vehicles.

114 / SB 1243 / §13-421 / Defensive display of firearms protection

“Defensive display of a firearm” means:

1 – Verbally telling someone that you have a firearm or can get one;

2 – Exposing or displaying a gun in a way that a reasonable person would understand means you can protect yourself against illegal physical or deadly physical force;

3 – Placing your hand on a firearm while it is in your pocket, purse or other means of
containment or transport.

Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly physical force. A defensive display is not required before using or threatening physical force, in a situation where you would be justified in using or threatening physical force.

Defensive display is not justified if you intentionally provoke the other person, or if you use a firearm in the commission of a serious offense or violent crime (defined in §13-706 and §13-901.3).

This important new law clarifies that a proper defensive reach for or announcement of firearm possession is an acceptable element in the continuum of self defense, and should not be charged as a crime. Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault). It also helps balance out the problematic and arbitrary “threatening exhibition” of a gun allegation that prosecutors can make in charging a felony as a “dangerous offense” (§13-702 and 704). The threat of this extra charge can be used to coerce a plea agreement, and now this is balanced with a specified stipulation of proper display of a gun without firing at a potential assailant.

44 / SB 1437 / §15-714.01 / High school marksmanship training expansion

Instructors for the Arizona Gun Safety Program, a marksmanship course for high school students, can be certified by a national association of firearms owners, in addition to the Arizona Game and Fish Dept.

SB 1449 / Retroactive self defense (Harold Fish law)

In certain cases, “Laws 2006, chapter 199 applies retroactively… regardless of when the conduct underlying the charges occurred.”

The state enacted amendments in 2006 to make it clear that, if a person claims self defense, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted without justification (the appropriate “innocent until proven guilty” standard). One of the laws amended, which had been quietly slipped in by prosecutors without review ten years earlier, forced a defendant to prove innocence, the exact opposite of what American laws
should be (it made you guilty unless you could prove your innocence, a tyrannical standard). Part of these changes became known as the Castle Doctrine — you can stand your ground if attacked, intruders in your home are a legally recognized threat, and self defense was to receive robust protection under the law.

The new rules were supposed to protect people in a predicament like Harold Fish, a school teacher with a clean record out hiking in May 2004. He was attacked by a homeless known troublemaker with violent dogs on a forest trail outside Payson. Mr. Fish, who survived by shooting his assailant three times in the chest at close range, was at first released in what appeared an obvious self defense, but was then attacked by the county attorney, in a trial that reeked of unfairness.

The legislature is here making it clear that people are entitled to the full protection of the law, and the public’s safety will likely be enhanced with this small measure that serves notice on the powers that be. Other problems, like failure to fully inform juries, bad jury instructions, exclusion of exculpatory or illuminating evidence, exorbitant cost and inordinate timeframes, and other potholes in the criminal justice system remain to be fixed.

HB 2569 (§13-2319) and SB 1242 (§13-3102)

Two additional gun laws will affect the statutes in the back of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, but have little direct impact on the general public or the text of the book. §13-2319 is amended to make smuggling people for profit or a commercial purpose a class 2 felony if the offense “involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” In §13-3102, we find that more “proper authorities” have been exempted from gun laws that restrict the public, like carrying without a permit, concealed carry
in a car without a permit, making, having, transporting or selling prohibited weapons, having a defaced deadly weapon, entering a public establishment or public event with a deadly weapon after being told not to, and more. The new crop of exempt special people includes community correctional officers, detention officers, and special investigators with
DOC or the Dept. of Juvenile Corrections. Other sections of the bill repeat language found in SB 1113, a common practice to help assure passage (if one bill fails, the language gets through in the other bill).

It’s interesting to note that, at the federal level, a growth process like this took place for decades, with a new batch of people added 32 times, until the statute grew so embarrassingly long (one sentence of 741 words) Congress shortened the law by 610 words, cutting out all the named groups, but expanded the impact by simply making it applicable to “any officer or employee of the United States. That statute, 18 USC §1114, makes it a greater crime to kill them than to kill you or me. How that comports with
equal protection under the law is unclear.

Author: Alan Korwin.

Alan Korwin is a founder and two-term past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association, which has presented him with its Visionary Leadership award, named in his honor, the Korwin Award. He is active with the speaker’s bureau for the non-profit, Wash., D.C.-based news-media watchdog, Accuracy In Media.

Alan’s first book, The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide , is now in its 23rd edition with more than 100,000 copies in print. He went on to write or co-write seven more books on gun laws, including state guides for California , Florida , Texas and Virginia , the unabridged federal guide Gun Laws of America , and his 11th, which debuted at the 2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference, The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed!

Alan’s blog, PageNine.org, is carried by dozens of paper and online outlets.

September 1, 2008

The general effective date regarding House Bill 2634 and Senate Bill 1070 is September 26, 2008.

Amendments to:

ARS 13-3112 Concealed weapons; qualification; application; permit to carry; certificate of firearms proficiency; training program; program instructors; report; applicability; violation; classification.

09-01-08: On September 26, 2008, the following two amendments related to CCW will become effective:

HB 2634 allows applicants who are not currently prohibited possessors under state or federal law AND whose felony convictions have been expunged, set aside, vacated, or whose rights have been restored the ability to obtain a concealed weapons permit. It also extends reciprocity to other states who issue permits under the same or similar conditions.

Federal and state laws play a significant role in determining if a record that has been expunged, set aside or vacated will allow an applicant to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Some convictions, even though they have been expunged, set aside or vacated may prevent the issuance of a concealed weapons permit because of conflict with other laws which prohibit possession of a weapon.

Additionally, reciprocal agreements with other states may be effected. The DPS Concealed Weapons Permit Unit will contact all other states to ascertain if they will enter into, or continue to honor, reciprocal agreements with Arizona. An updated reciprocity list will be posted on the CCW web page once this process has been completed. Until such time, permit holders wishing to carry concealed utilizing their Arizona CCW permit while visiting another state are responsible for contacting that state to ensure thier Arizona permit is recognized.

SB 1070 effects the length of time an applicant has to submit their application for a permit once training has been received. The new law gives the applicant five years from the time training is received to submit the application.

The new law uses the phrase “Adequate Documentation” which is defined as “a certificate, card or document of completion from an authorized firearms safety training program.” This term and its definition do NOT exempt an applicant from submitting an original Concealed Weapons Permit application which is obtained from the training organization who conducted the applicant’s training. Training organizations are required to keep class rosters for five years. Therefore, if a student must request a duplicate application, the organization must research class rosters and complete the Firearms Safety Training Program Completion Certificate section on a new application. The date the training was completed must be accurately recorded on the application and the organization must be able to produce the original class roster to verify the accuracy of the information it has recorded.

If a “current or expired permit issued by the Department” is presented as proof that the individual has previously attended the required firearms-safety training program, the applicant must also complete an original Concealed Weapons Permit application, submit two sets of classifiable fingerprints and the applicable fee required to obtain a new permit. The ‘permit’ they are presenting must be in good standing to be eligible as proof. Revoked permits will not be considered. This will NOT be considered a ‘renewal’ process. Applicants may request a new permit application and fingerprint cards by contacting the Concealed Weapons Permit Unit or the training organization who initially conducted the firearms-safety training.

Firearms-safety training instructors and organizations will be “Authorized” rather than “Approved” to conduct training.

Organizations on behalf of each of its instructors, may submit documentation to obtain or to renew an instructor’s authorization to provide firearms-safety training for the organization.

Note: There are no grandfather clauses related to either of the above amendments.

Applications received by the Concealed Weapons Permit unit on September 25, 2008 or earlier will be processed under the current law.

Applications received by the Concealed Weapons Permit unit on September 26, 2008 or later will be subject to the amendments contained in HB 2634 and SB 1070.