Ammo For Sale

« « The company you keep | Home | At the NRA Annual Meeting » »

By the time I get to Arizona

Guns on campus bill vetoed by the governor.

Posted in uncategorized on April 19th, 2011 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |

7 Responses to “By the time I get to Arizona”

  1. Gunmart Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Ummmm… did they change governors or something?

  2. craig Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Read the veto letter posted at the link. The governor was correct to veto this ambiguous bill, and all but specified how to modify it to be clear enough so that she could sign it.

    The problem is that the law-abiding gun owner literally cannot afford enough lawyers to defend against the inevitable claims that the law surely doesn’t permit him to carry there, because of undefined concepts of “public rights of way” and “educational institutions”.

    Particularly where federal and state prohibitions overlap, it is harmful to gun laws in general if state law is written so as to lull citizens into running afoul of federal law (see: marijuana, medical use of).

  3. Rivrdog Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Gunmart ++. I used to get all warm and fuzzy just thinking about all that liberty being spread in AZ, but no more.

    Brewer vetoed a second Bill yesterday, one which would have had all candidates on the ballot file a copy of their birth documents with the AZ Sec’y of State. That law made HUGE sense to me, but she axed it.

    I guess Brewer is getting to run for National Office as a Republican, so she has to move to the left…

  4. Jake Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Everybody should check out her reasons for the vetoes before raking her over the coals for them.

    On the Campus Carry bill:

    Brewer also vetoed a bill that would have made Arizona the second state in the nation to allow an individual to carry a firearm — either concealed or not — in the public rights of way on higher education campuses, because it was “so poorly written.”

    Brewer said shortcomings in the bill included a failure to define “public rights of way” and the inclusion of state schools, where firearms are prohibited by federal and state laws.

    So there’s no useable definition of where it actually applies, which leaves CHPers susceptible to the whims of whichever police officer and administrator they have to deal with, and the bill also conflicts with federal law in areas that are sure to get it struck down and some innocent person in jail. She sent it back with instructions on how to fix it.

    On the bill requiring presidential candidates to present the same documentation of citizenship that I had to show to renew my driver’s license:

    “I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptism or circumcision certificates’ … This is a bridge too far,” she said..

    A former Arizona secretary of state, Brewer said she did not support designating one person as “gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate,” as it “could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.”

    The documentation requirements seem a bit odd to me, and apparently to her as well (I don’t see how either of the two mentioned above prove anything about place of birth, for instance). She also didn’t want to leave the decision about eligibility to a single appointed official. While I can see that as a debatable point, I happen to agree with her in this case. I recall seeing elsewhere that there was also no provision for appeal. If true, that should be enough to draw a veto all by itself, and it would probably get the law declared unconstitutional in the courts.

    Both bills are needed, but they were both fatally flawed. I believe the legislature has the opportunity to fix them this year. If they don’t, they can always try again next year.

  5. Matthew Carberry Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 11:40 am

    I think Craig is right on the campus veto. It was quite simply too vague as passed.

    I’m on record as being in favor of taking almost good law and fixing them gradually, after all that’s how AK showed the way from no carry to Con Carry in 9 years total. But you need a solid, precise baby step to start from.

    Is there a case to be made in state Court, like in CO, now that there is some positive “legislative intent”?

  6. Dean Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    If firearms are prohibited on state schools by Federal law, according to current Federal theory on who gets to enforce such laws, should not the the state and local police differ to the Feds over enforcement? So, if the FBI wants to patrol Arizona State to see if anyone is carrying that should be the FBI’s problem.

  7. Matthew Carberry Says:
    April 19th, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Dean,

    The Feds don’t prohibit firearms on “state schools”.

    When folks say there is a problem with the bill talking about “state schools” they are referring to the bill using the generic words “state educational institutions” which could be read (somewhat reasonably) to include K-12 schools, which -are- covered by the Federal GFSZA in terms of gun possession.

    The Legislature was stupidly imprecise and deserved to be called on it. Since they meant “colleges and universities” they should have used the words “colleges and universities”.

    Words have meanings and stupid decisions have consequences.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives