Saw this over on the book of Face.  Apparently MCSO cited a guy for carrying a gun in a park (He was at Lake Pleasant).  Upheld by a judge.

Maricopa County Parks Rule R-106: (http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/PDF/ParkRules.pdf)

1. Possessing a firearm, unless unloaded in both barrel and magazine in any area closed to the
discharge of firearms unless permitted by state law.


WTF is this???

You can't hunt dove in certain areas of the Park.  He may not have seen him but he probably heard him.  So you get cited for the easy to enforce one.  That's what I'm guessing.

Interesting considering AZ State law allows discharge of firearm in self defense.

Sure, maybe he cant go target shooting in the park, but he is not permitted to carry a firearm for self defense?

ETA-

13-3107. Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
B. Notwithstanding the fact that the offense involves the discharge of a deadly weapon, unless a dangerous offense is alleged and proven pursuant to section 13-704, subsection L, section 13-604 applies to this offense.
C. This section does not apply if the firearm is discharged:
1. As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.
2. On a properly supervised range.
3. To lawfully take wildlife during an open season established by the Arizona game and fish commission and subject to the limitations prescribed by title 17 and Arizona game and fish commission rules and orders. This paragraph does not prevent a city, town or county from adopting an ordinance or rule restricting the discharge of a firearm within one-fourth mile of an occupied structure without the consent of the owner or occupant of the structure. For the purposes of this paragraph:
(a) "Occupied structure" means any building in which, at the time of the firearm's discharge, a reasonable person from the location where a firearm is discharged would expect a person to be present.
(b) "Take" has the same meaning prescribed in section 17-101.
4. For the control of nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United States fish and wildlife service.
5. By special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.
6. As required by an animal control officer in the performance of duties as specified in section 9-499.04.
7. Using blanks.
8. More than one mile from any occupied structure as defined in section 13-3101.
9. In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Municipality" means any city or town and includes any property that is fully enclosed within the city or town.
2. "Properly supervised range" means a range that is any of the following:
(a) Operated by a club affiliated with the national rifle association of America, the amateur trapshooting association, the national skeet association or any other nationally recognized shooting organization, or by any public or private school.
(b) Approved by any agency of the federal government, this state or a county or city within which the range is located.
(c) Operated with adult supervision for shooting air or carbon dioxide gas operated guns, or for shooting in underground ranges on private or public property.

Defers to state law, so if he was asked to leave and didn't or like the poster above said, was hunting where they shouldn't, then it makes sense.

In other words, this...


If he was target shooting or hunting, no-go....

Also, another question...

It appears most of the lake is surrounded by the city of Peoria.  So is the lake park a county island?

its all in your attitude if your calm and respectful  you wont have issues if your a butthead well you got problems.

BLM dude pulled me over inside the park and pulled out all of our guns which were loaded then didn't say anything.

Yeah, about that...

ARS 13-3108:

A. Except as provided in subsection G of this section, a political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition, gift, devise, storage, licensing, registration, discharge or use of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components or related accessories in this state.

This Maricopa County Park Rule should be illegal, shouldn't it?

(for clarification subsection G addresses how local governments can regulate and tax businesses involved in firearms, allows them to address some areas of minors and firearms, and allows them to prohibit the discharge of firearms.)

Yeah, I don't know the guy or any details for sure.  Just read that he was cited, was not shooting, was just carrying somewhere in the 'park'.  I take this Rule to say that you cannot legally possess a loaded gun anywhere near or on Lake Pleasant..

 

You pulled over for Black lives matter?

Which came first?

How would it matter which came first?  Are you saying if the Maricopa County rule came first that this law doesn't effect it?

Yes. Yes i did. They checked my white privilege and realized i was poorer than them so they let me go catch my fish

The verbiage you cited is explicit that they shall not "enact" a law, that was already on the books I'm guessing. I'm not a lawyer so I'm just making an educated guess.

Ahh, well subsection D of the same statute says . A political subdivision of this state shall not enact any rule or ordinance that relates to firearms and is more prohibitive than or that has a penalty that is greater than any state law penalty. A political subdivision's rule or ordinance that relates to firearms and that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than state law, whether enacted before or after July 29, 2010, is null and void.

So that sort of covers that idea.  

IIRC parks can ban guns except for carry WITH a CCW permit. Did he have a CCW permit?

That's National Parks.

You can carry a firearm anyway you want in city or county parks.  The statute that was cited is a hunting statute (actually a Park rule).  He was cited for hunting in the park not carrying.  The header of the statute matters.  This is the only thread on the internet talking about this.  If it was for carrying, there'd be more forums talking about it.


R-106 FIREARMS, HUNTING AND TRAPPING
1.  Possessing a firearm, unless unloaded in both barrel and magazine in any area closed to the discharge of firearms unless permitted by state law. 2.  Shooting a firearm, air rifle, air pistol, potato cannon, or any type of cannon, paint ball gun slingshot, or shooting with bow and arrow, or setting traps except in locations provided for that purpose and as permitted by Arizona Game and Fish rules.

http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/PDF/ParkRules.pdf

I'm betting he was hunting.

That it does.

Weird, every time I've gone to Pleasant I'm armed. There are too many jackasses ruining what used to be an awesome area.

Not a hunting rule.  It's a firearms and hunting rule. You can't trap with a firearm.

Nope, its an AZ statute. It is why a lot of parks that used to be posted "no guns" had their signs amended a few years back to add reference to the CCW statutes.

How do they expect you to dispatch the critter in your trap?

You typically have your shit together, so I'm inclined to believe you... However, can you quote the statute that allows the state to ban guns in parks, with the exception of CCW?

According to the poster on FB, the individual was NOT hunting.  "It was some sort of a traffic stop he took it upon himself to show the officer his CCW and tell him that he was carrying. Officer took it, ran it to see if stolen, returned it, cited him for violating R-106 and sent him on his way. Don't know the reason the officer initiated the traffic stop."

Oh ok.hmmmmm. theres gotta be more to the story. I dont know anyone that goes to the lake without a gun incase of dangerous critters both 4 legged and 2 legged.

Yeah, it's weird.  Poster also claims the guy went to court in the Hassayampa JP in Surprise and the JP found the citation valid.

Again, this is all 3rd hand info.  However, the Rules *do* say you cannot have a loaded firearm in MC parks.  AZCDL is on the case...

Ok, my first thought on that was that JP's don't necessarily have any legal training. So off to Google I went.

I didn't see much on this particular JP. He is not a member of the State Bar, nor has he been. But he was just elected. And a quick google reveals a video at the below law office (yeah, yeah, he's a ambulance chaser) but his point really is that if someone who doesn't know the law (guy cited) is in the courtroom run by a guy who doesn't know the law (JP), and the guy prosecuting him DOES know the law... The JP is likely to take the Prosecutors word for it. Sure, they're trying to sell their service, but it's also likely true.

http://dmcantor.com/courts/justice-court/hassayampa-justice-court/

So the gist of it is that I wouldn't count on the word of this particular court to be the end-all-be-all of correct legal judgement.

 
This is probably exactly what happened.  Pays to know the law people.  Would have been dismissed if he had known it.