Arizona CHL Permit Process

[Easyasmc]

Just FYSA:

I emailed the Arizona DPS for a CHL packet and received one within 5 days.
The packet includes:
A one page form for your personal info and a few questions just like on a Form 4473. (Only asks about felonies and not misdemeanors)
2 Fingerprint cards. (You can go to your local PD if you're a resident for free. If not any PD will do it for a small fee)
A pre addressed envelope to send back your forms.

I am not sure if the Texas LTC firearms course would count as proof of handgun proficiency, but all you have to do is send them an email and ask. They actually answer questions. If you are a veteran, all you need to do is send a copy of your DD 214 for the training portion. Throw a $60 USPS money order in that bad boy and you're done.

They received my packet on 27 Jan 2017, license issued 15 Feb 2017 and arrived in the mail yesterday, 21 Feb 2017.

Just another option for those who do not want to wait 3 months.

[parabelum]

I'll add a somewhat obtuse caveat, Federal GFSZ. The 1000' exception only applies to the actual State that the permit was issued in.
So if all you have is AZ CHL, you may not be covered.
I can't find any case right now, but I wouldn't want to be the test case either. Having out of State CHL to compliment TX LTC is one thing, living in TX and only having out of State CHL is something else.

IANAL.

[Easyasmc]

I'll add a somewhat obtuse caveat, Federal GFSZ. The 1000' exception only applies to the actual State that the permit was issued in.
So if all you have is AZ CHL, you may not be covered.
I can't find any case right now, but I wouldn't want to be the test case either. Having out of State CHL to compliment TX LTC is one thing, living in TX and only having out of State CHL is something else.

IANAL.

I've posed the question to a few LEO's and they said they would honor it. All 3 said Texas has a written agreement and you would be fine. I'll be the test case, I have both LTC and Arizona CCW. Show them the Arizona one first.

[Liberty]

I'll add a somewhat obtuse caveat, Federal GFSZ. The 1000' exception only applies to the actual State that the permit was issued in.
So if all you have is AZ CHL, you may not be covered.
I can't find any case right now, but I wouldn't want to be the test case either. Having out of State CHL to compliment TX LTC is one thing, living in TX and only having out of State CHL is something else.

IANAL.

I've posed the question to a few LEO's and they said they would honor it. All 3 said Texas has a written agreement and you would be fine. I'll be the test case, I have both LTC and Arizona CCW. Show them the Arizona one first.

The Locals aren't going to enforce a silly unconstitutional GFSZ. It's a stupid law and unenforcable. 1000 FT is an unreasonable requirement it would make it pretty much illegal to have a gun in most urban and many suburban area. I don't think anyone has been charged, in Texas nor in the rest of the country.

What I would be cautious about is packing on school property itself. I believe that without a Texas LTC one could charged if actually on the property.

[apvonkanel]

A little off topic, but the way the GFSZ law looks you'd still need an LTC to carry within 1000' of a school even with constitutional carry. Am I reading this correctly?

[Charles L. Cotton]

A little off topic, but the way the GFSZ law looks you'd still need an LTC to carry within 1000' of a school even with constitutional carry. Am I reading this correctly?

Yes.

Chas.

[ELB]

...The Locals aren't going to enforce a silly unconstitutional GFSZ. It's a stupid law and unenforcable. 1000 FT is an unreasonable requirement it would make it pretty much illegal to have a gun in most urban and many suburban area. I don't think anyone has been charged, in Texas nor in the rest of the country. ...

The locals would not enforce it because it is a federal law. The feds do on occasion charge and convict people under this law. I don't know how many are convicted and then fail to appeal, but I have read several appeals of federal convictions under GFSZ statute, and IIRC, none were overturned. In every case I remember where there was a conviction, the GFSZ charge came about after the suspect was arrested for something else first, like drugs (mostly).

There is one case I know of where the was person charged with a GFSZ violation and felon-in-possession, and had the charges thrown out at the federal district (trial) court. The Feds appealed to the circuit court, which also agreed with the district court, and refused to support the charges (because the person charged had had his 2A rights restored and had state license to carry). This person came to the attention of the feds because of a local incident that involved holding a gun to the neck of someone on school property. Could not find any further info on that part.

People do get charged, but generally they have to get caught doing something else bad first.


The GFSZ provides an exception for licensed carry:

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located
or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before
an individual obtains such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;

Most people seem to think that means the license has to come from the state that the school is in, but I don't think it has ever been determined in court whether "licensed to do so by the State" would include that State's recognition of another State's license by reciprocity or proclamation. It appears from comments above that at least some LEOs would recognize a reciprocal license.

[Liberty]

...The Locals aren't going to enforce a silly unconstitutional GFSZ. It's a stupid law and unenforcable. 1000 FT is an unreasonable requirement it would make it pretty much illegal to have a gun in most urban and many suburban area. I don't think anyone has been charged, in Texas nor in the rest of the country. ...

The locals would not enforce it because it is a federal law. The feds do on occasion charge and convict people under this law. I don't know how many are convicted and then fail to appeal, but I have read several appeals of federal convictions under GFSZ statute, and IIRC, none were overturned. In every case I remember where there was a conviction, the GFSZ charge came about after the suspect was arrested for something else first, like drugs (mostly).

There is one case I know of where the was person charged with a GFSZ violation and felon-in-possession, and had the charges thrown out at the federal district (trial) court. The Feds appealed to the circuit court, which also agreed with the district court, and refused to support the charges (because the person charged had had his 2A rights restored and had state license to carry). This person came to the attention of the feds because of a local incident that involved holding a gun to the neck of someone on school property. Could not find any further info on that part.

People do get charged, but generally they have to get caught doing something else bad first.

If we were to obey this law it would be impractical and just about impossible for those of us who have an LTC to drive to or through recipricrating states.

[ELB]

If we were to obey this law it would be impractical and just about impossible for those of us who have an LTC to drive to or through recipricrating states.

That may very well be the case. As I noted, you have to do something to get noticed first.

Also see that I added a comment to my previous post. I am not totally convinced that a license from another state that is legally recognized by the state that has the school zone does not fulfill the exception in the GFSZ statute, but I don't know of any cases where this was tested.

[ScottDLS]

...The Locals aren't going to enforce a silly unconstitutional GFSZ. It's a stupid law and unenforcable. 1000 FT is an unreasonable requirement it would make it pretty much illegal to have a gun in most urban and many suburban area. I don't think anyone has been charged, in Texas nor in the rest of the country. ...

The locals would not enforce it because it is a federal law. The feds do on occasion charge and convict people under this law. I don't know how many are convicted and then fail to appeal, but I have read several appeals of federal convictions under GFSZ statute, and IIRC, none were overturned. In every case I remember where there was a conviction, the GFSZ charge came about after the suspect was arrested for something else first, like drugs (mostly).

There is one case I know of where the was person charged with a GFSZ violation and felon-in-possession, and had the charges thrown out at the federal district (trial) court. The Feds appealed to the circuit court, which also agreed with the district court, and refused to support the charges (because the person charged had had his 2A rights restored and had state license to carry). This person came to the attention of the feds because of a local incident that involved holding a gun to the neck of someone on school property. Could not find any further info on that part.

People do get charged, but generally they have to get caught doing something else bad first.


The GFSZ provides an exception for licensed carry:

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located
or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before
an individual obtains such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;

Most people seem to think that means the license has to come from the state that the school is in, but I don't think it has ever been determined in court whether "licensed to do so by the State" would include that State's recognition of another State's license by reciprocity or proclamation. It appears from comments above that at least some LEOs would recognize a reciprocal license.

BATF has taken the position that this means the license has to be issued by the state that you are in. Like you I think this is a dubious claim, but it hasn't been litigated yet, and probably never will as I don't believe that the ATF wants to risk getting the entire law thrown as in Lopez. On the other hand, you've got the recent idiotic straw purchase decision that just goes to show bad cases make bad case law.

[Easyasmc]

I'll never be in a school so I really don't care either way, my kids are grown and gone lol.

Just wanted to let folks know what the current time is for Arizona. Peace

[Charles L. Cotton]

...The Locals aren't going to enforce a silly unconstitutional GFSZ. It's a stupid law and unenforcable. 1000 FT is an unreasonable requirement it would make it pretty much illegal to have a gun in most urban and many suburban area. I don't think anyone has been charged, in Texas nor in the rest of the country. ...

The locals would not enforce it because it is a federal law. The feds do on occasion charge and convict people under this law. I don't know how many are convicted and then fail to appeal, but I have read several appeals of federal convictions under GFSZ statute, and IIRC, none were overturned. In every case I remember where there was a conviction, the GFSZ charge came about after the suspect was arrested for something else first, like drugs (mostly).

There is one case I know of where the was person charged with a GFSZ violation and felon-in-possession, and had the charges thrown out at the federal district (trial) court. The Feds appealed to the circuit court, which also agreed with the district court, and refused to support the charges (because the person charged had had his 2A rights restored and had state license to carry). This person came to the attention of the feds because of a local incident that involved holding a gun to the neck of someone on school property. Could not find any further info on that part.

People do get charged, but generally they have to get caught doing something else bad first.


The GFSZ provides an exception for licensed carry:

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located
or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before
an individual obtains such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;

Most people seem to think that means the license has to come from the state that the school is in, but I don't think it has ever been determined in court whether "licensed to do so by the State" would include that State's recognition of another State's license by reciprocity or proclamation. It appears from comments above that at least some LEOs would recognize a reciprocal license.

BATF has taken the position that this means the license has to be issued by the state that you are in. Like you I think this is a dubious claim, but it hasn't been litigated yet, and probably never will as I don't believe that the ATF wants to risk getting the entire law thrown as in Lopez. On the other hand, you've got the recent idiotic straw purchase decision that just goes to show bad cases make bad case law.

There have been convictions under the reenacted version of the GFSZ law and they have been upheld at the appellate level. I do not know if that involved an out-of-state license, but I seriously doubt it.

Chas.

[ninjabread]

A little off topic, but the way the GFSZ law looks you'd still need an LTC to carry within 1000' of a school even with constitutional carry. Am I reading this correctly?

You also need a LTC to have a rifle in your car passing that close to a school on the way to/from the range or the deer lease, unless the rifle is completely unloaded and in a locked container.

Forget MPA. That's completely out the window if you're on a highway that passes too close to a school.