Guns dot com
House Bill 2338 gives prosecutors in the state the ability to charge those who wrest a firearm from the hands of a gun user who was not in violation of the law with felony aggravated assault. Democrats contested this bill because the act of taking a gun from another is already a felony in the state. The measure passed the Senate by 21-7 but since that body amended it, it needs to be voted on again by the House before going to Brewer’s office.
If Gov. Brewer signs House Bill 2517 into law, local city and county boards who implement ordinances that are more strict than the state’s own gun laws could face fines of up to $5,000. Besides the fine, it would also allow the state to sue individual local lawmakers who establish such an ordinance. These types of preemption laws, modeled after Florida’s long-standing statute are growing across the country. HB2517 passed by a vote of 17-12 and has been transmitted to the governor.
“To protect Arizona’s law-abiding gun owners from a confusing patchwork of local gun laws, the state enacted a firearms preemption law over a decade ago. Unfortunately, some public officials are willfully ignoring the law, and they need to be held accountable,” said Catherine Mortensen, an NRA Spokesperson to Guns.com Thursday. “House Bill 2517 would finally hold local governments accountable for imposing gun control schemes that go beyond state laws.”
Yet another measure, House Bill 2103, which would allow military members who are at least 19 years old to obtain a concealed carry permit in the state, is also on Gov. Brewer’s desk. It passed the senate Tuesday by a 20-10 vote..
Of the five bills, House Bill 2339, which would allow Arizona’s 200,000 concealed carry permit holders to enter buildings, including most public buildings, that had ‘no guns’ signs posted, brought the stiffest resistance. The measure excludes those with enhanced security measures such as courts as well as schools and universities. While it passed the Senate by a narrow 16-12 vote with 2 abstentions, it is not guaranteed to be signed by Brewer who vetoed similar legislation at least twice before citing that, “Emotions can run high”.
We have whittled down our CCW laws over the last 10 years where they are unbelievably laughable,” Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said about the concealed carry expansion, arguing there is little difference between those licensed to carry a concealed weapon and those who are not. “Just about anyone can obtain a CCW license.”
Governor Brewer is expected to make a decision on the pending legislation in coming weeks.
Good for Arizona, and did you notice that part about how laws like this are growing across the country?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I've noticed.
Delete“Just about anyone can obtain a CCW license.”
ReplyDeleteOh the horror of people being able to exercise their rights with limited exceptions.
Yes it is a horror.
DeleteIt's not that incredible. The good states are getting better while the bad states are getting worse. Of we differ on what's good and bad, but there is no surprise here.
ReplyDeleteLet's go down the list. You yourself have spoken of wanting a federal level permit system that would be used nation wide. You have also spoken against states that wish to pass laws that directly conflict with federal law. So why is it suddenly a bad thing when states decide to enforce the same standards within its borders?
ReplyDeleteThen there is allowing 19 year old soldiers to obtain a carry permit. You seem to think that after being trusted with military weaponry in a stressful combat zone, they can't handle the stress of a posting in the US?
And then we whittle down on the number of gun free zones for permit holders, which in the long run, cut down on potential theft of firearms being left in cars and a reduction in negligent discharges by reducing the number of times a permit holder has to upholster and reholster in order to conduct his lawful business.
And all under the careful close supervision of the voters who will quickly hold the politicians accountable if they stray too far.
You know Arizona is already in the top ten for murder rate.
DeleteNo it's not. It's about average.
Deletemike, I count sixteen jurisdiictions that have higher murder rates than Arizona, though that includes DC and Puerto Rico. Care to check my math?
Deletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf
The table I looked at yesterday had AZ in tenth position. But, 10th or 14th, (since we don't count non-states) out of 50 is still the same thing, no?
DeleteHow is that "about average," TS?
Arizona's murder rate is 5.5, while the national average is 4.7. CA is also over 5, but somehow you don't call that horrible.
Delete5.5 compared to 4.7 is about the same thing? Funny how you call it one way when it's convenient and another when it's not.
DeleteThe post was about Arizona not California and I didn't use the word "horrible." I said in the top ten.
You've called it "horrible" in the past. Arizona currently ranks 15th for 2012 murder rate- not in the top ten. You must be looking at older data, which is kind of funny that you are drawing attention to the fact that Arizona is improving with respect to other states.
Delete5.5 murders per 100k is 17% higher than the national rate. That's not a whole lot. Disparage it if you must, but then what do you say about Michigan, Maryland, Delaware, and Illinois, which all have even higher murder rates and rank in the top 10 for gun control?
By the way, the median value for state murder rate is 4.2 which is lower than the national murder rate. High population states are contributing more murders at a higher rate, while there are a bunch of low population states with low murder rates. Indiana is right at the national murder rate of 4.7, but ranks 20th, not 25th. CA sits at 18th, only three spots lower than Arizona.
Serious question: Why is the median state average different from the national?
DeleteWhat hypocrites these screamers of protecting gun rights are when they force people to have guns on their property. Where is the right for a business to NOT have guns on their property? One town passed a law saying every resident HAD to own a gun. The gun loon "side" isn't the least bit interested in individual rights, or business owners rights. SS, TS, and GC all said they would ignore the president of Starbuck's public plea to not bring guns into his stores.
ReplyDeleteDid I?
Delete"Where is the right for a business to NOT have guns on their property?"
DeleteAnon, I don't know of any state that doesn't allow a private business to ban permit holders from carrying on their property. And many states restrict permit holders from carrying in certain types of venues without the consent of those venues.
In Minnesota, all Starbucks has to do is to abide by state law and post the proper sign in the proper place as detailed in the law, and I'll never darken their door again. I personally haven't stepped foot in Starbucks since their President made that weak attempt to pander to both sides and avoid making a stand up decision precisely because he was working so hard to make a stand.
However, if in the future, I decide I want to buy a cookie from the venue at the local Barnes and Noble, which also doesn't post a no guns sign, I have no problem buying. Again, they have but to follow the law.
Starbucks doesn't have a policy to bar bringing guns into the shop. It just came up with a mealy-mouthed mass of verbiage to shut the Moms up. But unless you would accept a store banning gay couples or people wearing yarmulkes from entering, you're being inconsistent.
DeleteSS,
Delete"Of the five bills, House Bill 2339, which would allow Arizona’s 200,000 concealed carry permit holders to enter buildings, including most public buildings, that had ‘no guns’ signs posted"
Gun loons want to take away the right of business owners to NOT have guns on their property, oh, I already said that.
GC,
The president of Starbucks made a national media statement and plea for his customers NOT to bring their guns into his store. That's a matter of public record, but thanks for lying again. And of course change the subject from guns to gays.
It's not changing the subject to say that businesses have no right to exclude customers who are exercising their own rights in a manner that isn't disrupting business.
DeleteSince you are so intent on calling people liars, could you please tell me where I says I would bring my gun into Starbucks?
Delete"Of the five bills, House Bill 2339, which would allow Arizona’s 200,000 concealed carry permit holders to enter buildings, including most public buildings, that had ‘no guns’ signs posted"
DeleteAnon, 2339 pertains to government buildings, commonly called public property. I cant rightfully say your lying because I don't think you expended any effort to see if you were correct. So you're just wrong.
"Current law says anyone carrying a weapon has to surrender it at the door of a public building if there are lockers immediately available. But only some buildings have armed guards and metal detectors to ensure compliance."
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/681e8884-f6cf-5b4c-a196-e4888261048a.html
So Arizona law will become pretty much like Minnesota law with the exception that in Minnesota, if I wish to carry in county buildings or the state capitol, I'm required to send a letter of intent to either the Sheriff of that county, or in the case of the capitol, the security office there. It isn't asking permission. (already sent mine in) Its good for as long as the permit is valid.
Sorry SS,
DeleteThe wording is quite clear, it said most buildings AND public buildings. It clearly noted both public and private buildings.
"Of the five bills, House Bill 2339, which would allow Arizona’s 200,000 concealed carry permit holders to "enter buildings", including most public buildings, that had ‘no guns’ signs posted, brought the stiffest resistance. The measure excludes those with enhanced security measures such as courts as well as schools and universities."
The wording clearly states "buildings and public buildings"
I am not wrong, you try to twist words, lie.
Next lie
GC,
DeleteYou go from guns to gays. That's changing the subject, or do you think guns and gays are the same?
"The wording is quite clear, it said most buildings AND public buildings. It clearly noted both public and private buildings."
DeleteAnon, perhaps this source will make it clear enough to understand,
"Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday vetoed a bill that that would have allowed concealed-carry permit holders to take their guns into government buildings, to the surprise of the bill's sponsor."
"House Bill 2339 would have allowed people with concealed-carry permits to bring weapons into government buildings unless security measures — including armed guards, metal detectors and gun lockers — are in place. The measure excluded public K-12 schools, community colleges and universities."
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/2d8971f87f3e4c7b9a25a2074fb9ba1a/AZ--Gun-Bills
Please not the repeated use of the term government, signifying public property, as opposed to private property. Also note that the bill was vetoed, so the threat you perceive to property owners is safe, even though it really wasn't.
Sure, change the wording from this post and it makes a difference. I quoted the wording from this post.
DeleteWhich means SSG was correct in his statement of what the bill would do--his statement you called a lie--and you were wrong because you were relying on the words chosen by a reporter as the source text for your legal interpretation rather than looking up the bill.
DeleteIn other words, SSG did his homework and got it right, while you were too lazy to do it and just sat back falsely accusing him of being a liar.
I think rights are rights. If you can violate one right, no right is safe.
DeleteI quoted the wording (reread) it clearly stated public and other buildings. Sorry you cannot read, and of course just call someone a liar, which is funny since you are the one who has been caught lying about me multiple times.
DeleteHere's a bit of good news, one down, three to go....
ReplyDelete"Brewer signed House Bill 2483 Wednesday evening, shortly after it was transmitted to her office. Two other bills remain unsigned and a third has not yet reached her desk.
The bill bans cities, counties and towns from restricting the shooting of guns on private property. The bill was sponsored by Republican Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills. It passed the Senate on a 16-13 vote Wednesday and had earlier passed the House."
http://ktar.com/22/1724036/Gov-Brewer-signs-1-of-4-progun-bills-