Tax Credit for Concealed Carry Permits? Arizona Lawmaker Introduces Bill

Is your concealed carry permit tax deductible? If you are an Arizona resident, it could be. House Majority Leader Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park) has proposed legislation to provide a tax credit to those that get their concealed carry weapons permit.

House Bill 2494 would give Arizonans a tax credit of up to $80 to cover the cost of a permit and training.

Although Arizona is a “constitutional carry” state, the law currently allows adults over the age of 21 to carry a firearm openly or concealed without a permit, one needs a license to bring one’s weapon into a place where alcohol is served. Another advantage to having a CCW is that Arizona’s license is also honored by many other states. To date, about 251,000 Arizonians have obtained a CCW.

However, those current permit-holders would be ineligible for the credit.

The President of Prescott Gun Club, Don Grier, thinks the bill is a good idea, “if it’s an incentive to go out and get properly trained.”

But Grier, who does have a CCW, understands why some might be against the idea.

“I don’t think it’s an issue of they don’t want it,” he told The Daily Courier. “I think it’s sometimes an issue of time, because they have to commit to an eight-hour class … (and) sometimes they don’t want to get it because they’re concerned about the government compiling registration lists.”

Arizona House Majority Leader Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park.  (Photo: Daily Courier)

Arizona House Majority Leader Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park. (Photo: Daily Courier)

“I would much rather have the benefits that come with the proper training, and the benefits of having the permit, which lets me carry legally in approximately 35 other states,” Grier continued.

Though Sherrie Seibert, co-owner of Prescott Valley’s Insight Firearms Training Development, thinks the bill is a good idea, she also believes in adding some provisions.

“There should also be some type of a state-mandated training curriculum, so that everybody is getting taught the exact same thing,” she said. “Right now, CCW training is somewhat of a free-for-all. There are so many different types of programs you can take in order to apply for a CCW – one of them is a hunter safety course.”

Her husband, Matt Seibert, agrees.

“We just lost reciprocity with West Virginia because of the fact that there’s no consistency in what’s being taught.”

Montenegro, who does have a CCW permit, also says safety is the main priority.

“It’s promoting safety,” he said. “Law enforcement has told us time and time again that the first line of defense are those that carry CCW permits.”

“We want to promote people being educated in having CCW permits,” he continued. “We value those that are able to take these classes and help us with safety.”

The cost of this tax credit? While unlikely, as many as 3 million residents could receive the credit after taking a training course, to the tune of $240 million. But Montenegro says that cost is not an issue.

“We want to promote a safe Arizona. And we can’t put a price on any lives as well.”

If you lived in Arizona, would you support a tax credit for concealed carry permits? Sound off in the comments.

(Editor’s note: This article was a submission from freelance writer Mike Doran.)

{ 14 comments… add one }
  • Gary October 24, 2017, 4:48 pm

    I like the idea of a tax credit to encourage your average Joe to get a CCP. However, permitting processes should not exist anywhere in the U.S. It’s a violation of the Second Amendment and is no different from the “voting tax” to suppress black votes. Not everyone has the time and money for an expense carry permit. Ironically, those who most need an equalizer are those who can least afford to legally carry one. In Arkansas, the process costs about as much as a new S&W SD9VE ($300, all in all) and takes several months to complete. A cheaper option – the Virginia Non-Resident Permit – takes up to NINE MONTHS to get back to you. How have politicians become so corrupt that they are willing to sacrifice the safety of others for personal gain? We let them.

  • Phillip Whitehead February 3, 2017, 8:04 am

    The representative has the right idea, offering the benefit of tax credit for CCW holders. However, the Seiberts are only interested in lining their own pockets.
    I have worked around them for long enough to know that they are in this business for their own, myopic self interests, rather than actually helping others. They proved that when they had their daughter trained (by myself) to take over sales management of the range retail counter, and then systematically got rid of everyone who had any substantial experience or training.

    They did not want anyone around who posed a threat to their claim of a revolutionary teaching style, which at it’s core, is nothing more than sight alignment, trigger control and breathing control dressed up with flashy terms and never ending credit card charges.
    IMHO, they should be prosecuted for fraud.

  • Bob November 29, 2016, 1:31 am

    Fine. But make creation and retention of lists (ie: Registration of People and Guns) a Class A Felony with Mandatory sentencing of a year or more in the State Prison without parole for EVERY ONE INVOLVED in the scheme. That’s everyone who issues the authorization to create or keep a list, everyone who possess such a list, everyone who retrieves any data from such a list, everyone who facilitates it, everyone who touches it, and everyone who archives it, such penalties irretrievably linked to a de-funding of any State Legislators who suggest it. And providing that before this legislation can be altered in any way, …………………

  • Jim Sr. January 30, 2016, 12:33 pm

    I have completed three (3) handgun course at FrontSight.com (Nevada) from 2009 -2011. Both trips I drove from North Carolina with 1600 rounds and 4 pistols for my wife and I, and every state had agreements with NC. EXCEPTION: in 2009, Arizona & North Carolina did not have agreements. In 2010 the AG’s exchanged letters so during the 2011 trip, I carried concealed legally in all states. Their training exceeds what I had as a Federal Police Officer, including FBI at that time. Health issues have prevented my return, however I train locally at an outdoor range, teaching those who wish to learn handgun safety and use. Why the anti-gun Attorney General in VA has revoked NC reciprocity is beyond me, since NC is very strict in its required training. ALL of these hours cost $2,000. and well worth every penny.
    Stay safe out there,
    Jim Sr.

  • Paul January 29, 2016, 5:15 pm

    Just got off the phone with my AG, I believe Mr. Seirbert
    has West Virginia mixed up with Virginia, they dropped
    App 26 State reciprocity agreements. We did not.
    We have a great bill up now in our Legislator concerning
    CCP’s, SURE HOPE IT PASSES.

  • davud January 29, 2016, 2:16 pm

    *** “I think it’s sometimes an issue of time, because they have to commit to an eight-hour class …***

    this is a terribly sad statement, is someone doesn’t consider the safety of themselves or their loved ones worth such a tiny expenditure of time..

  • Mike McShea January 29, 2016, 1:32 pm

    When I moved to Arizona my old Michigan CCW had to be replaced with one from my new state. I took the CCW classes at Gunsight and was very pleased with the scope of their training. I am supportive of there being a state-wide, standardized training program to maximize safety for all concerned. However, I would consider expanding the program to include introductory firearms education in classrooms beginning as early as grade one. Teaching children about firearms could help reduce those horrible accidental shootings that claim innocent lives.

  • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 1:23 pm

    Don’t let anyone in the government tell you that all it wants to do is “help” you with safety issues or anything else. Call me crazy but I’m pretty sure that the Founding Fathers meant what they wrote and wrote what they meant, when they inscribed “…shall not be infringed.” ANY government interference with the Second Amendment is by definition, an infringement. And anyone who tries to counter the intent of the Second Amendment by second-guessing the Founders, is a crapweasel.

    To defend other gun regulations by saying that the founders had naturally excluded ownership of firearms by violent criminals or the adjudged dangerous persons is disingenuous. ALL of the Founders wrote opinions about the right of the competent, law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. The Founders had just experienced the abuse of the lawful government of King George, and they intended to avoid the same re occurrence by compelling the government to honor the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    Think about it, what Founding Father would agree that the government should control every aspect of gun ownership by a law-abiding individual? All governments tend to want to control the people. The entire Constitution was written to counter that proclivity. What ensures the liberty of the people? The Supreme Court of the United States? Don’t make me laugh!
    The Congress? Try to be serious! The President? In what world would anyone consider that Indonesian national as being a protector of one’s constitutional rights? The real aegis that shields the people against the government is the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. No, it was not written to allow citizens to go squirrel hunting, or to shoot at paper targets. The Second Amendment was written to enable the people to have a credible means to maintain their independence from a government that might abuse their inherent rights. Question: what government could be trusted to keep a database on who owns what firearm? If you say our current government, you are a Democrat or a RINO.

    The only way to keep the government honest, is to keep it ignorant about who owns what firearms. obama well knows that a government can’t abuse the rights of an armed populace. That’s why he pushes so hard for a gun registration, oops I mean “background check” law. Question: why does the government want to know the serial number of a privately owned firearm?
    Hint: think of the word “confiscation”.

  • Mike January 29, 2016, 10:30 am

    Both pro & cons offered are true, safety first, we can’t trust our government either. I thought the NRA had the model CCW program that was accepted by the states and law enforcement agencies in the country. I took my CCW course at the NRA headquarters and it was great. I learned to shoot as a kid and hunted and fine tuned my shooting skills in the Air Force and have carried for 40 years. Training is necessary. The hunting sport is dwindling and more people are just buying a gun because the can do so and they risk hurting themselves, & loved ones, even though they want protection. It’s a catch 22 situation.

  • Kalashnikov Dude January 29, 2016, 10:25 am

    I did a CCW class with Matt Seibert in the 90’s at the High Noon gun store in Prescott Valley. I had it, but let it lapse. Now one is not required. I have a bit of a problem with asking for a permit in order to exercise my God given rights. I’m all about proper training. But only because it’s not realistic to expect father to pass it down to son anymore. These days kids have two or more “fathers” and they still can’t manage to get the job done. And this is training which I have always held, ought to be covered in school K-12 beginning with age appropriate lessons on what to do when a child encounters a firearm and culminating with general safe handling techniques as well as instruction on state laws and full coverage of our 2nd Amendment. It ought to be part of basic social culture to handle a firearm properly in a nation with probably 500,000,000 guns and 350,000,000 people. If you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one of em, you probably shouldn’t be firing a gun without at least some basic instruction. I get it. Why can’t those who fight the idea of gun safety being taught in schools?

  • Skip January 29, 2016, 10:22 am

    I am in favor of the Constitution which is a federal rule of law… so maybe a federal CCW with universal training and vetting is in order. It would certainly simplify the process, but then again the federal government has never proven that they can do anything right. And state governments are providing more and more evidence that they can’t either.

  • MarkOwen January 29, 2016, 9:51 am

    Make sure every state passes the same legislation. More guns and permits for everyone!

    • Mike January 29, 2016, 11:06 am

      You have one drivers license that is accepted in all of the states. It’s a no brainer. Universal training. Why can’t we have one CCW permit instead of dealing with all of the bickering between each state and the federal government. If the Federal government is assuming they know the correct understanding of the constitution regarding having a gun/using a gun and owning a gun, then each state should be mandated to offer the same CCW training course, for the same cost to the citizens and abolish the childish reciprocity games that are being played between the states like MD, NY, NJ, VA etc.. Learn how to use a gun, like you learn how to drive a car and be responsible for your actions. Then maybe word will get out that everyone that is carrying a gun knows how to use it and thugs will think twice before they try to rape someone, rob someone or threaten your life. There would be a better chance that those persons would will get swift justice and sentencing…Instead of a free lawyer and others like them might then think twice before they attempt doing the same thing. We won’t need as many prisons, only more cemeteries. Land costs tax payers less than prisons.

      • Joe McHugh January 29, 2016, 9:00 pm

        Mike, why do you use words like license, permits and mandated training, regarding a law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms? The State of Vermont considers the Second Amendment to be the only guide to gun ownership. Guess what? Vermont has a gun related crime rate per capita that is FIVE TIMES LOWER than that of its neighboring State of New York. It’s the misuse of firearms that impacts the law-abiding citizens, not the number or type of firearms.

        Gun ownership requires individual responsibility. If a citizen causes a gun related injury or death to another law-abiding citizen, that person will face a jury of 12 unsympathetic jurors. If a person has to be led by the government to act responsibly, does that person really have the maturity to have a firearm? You can lecture until you’re blue in the face but you can’t teach responsibility to an adult that missed such training as a child.

        Safety? Nothing about a firearm is safe, you can only take it upon yourself to learn responsible handling of a firearm. Even one moment of careless handling can lead to a tragedy. In plain words, the gun owner is responsible for his or her gun, not a government nanny. Hmmm…I wonder how the residents of Vermont get along without mandatory gun training, permits and licenses? Perhaps it’s something in the water that induces better gun ownership behavior.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend