Governor Ducey today vetoed the Neo-Confederate gun bill from Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) that would have had Arizona join a compact confederacy of states who surrender their state sovereignty to allow the gun nuts of any state to nullify the laws of any other member state regarding guns, and more importantly, to strip you of your constitutional right to a citizens initiative.
Governor Ducey signed two other bills from the gun fetishists and worshipers lobby. Governor Doug Ducey Takes Action On Firearms Bills:
Governor Doug Ducey today took action on three firearms bills. The governor signed SB 1266 (firearms; state preemption; penalties) and HB 2338 (educational institutions; firearms; rights-of-way).
Additionally, the governor has vetoed HB 2524 (uniform firearms transfer compact). His statement is below:
“Today, I was glad to sign Senate Bill 1266 and House Bill 2338 – two pieces of legislation that protect our Second Amendment rights. Earlier this year I signed House Bill 2224 (private firearm transactions; prohibited encumbrances), reinforcing my commitment to allowing the exchange of firearms without government intrusion. I have signed several other firearms bills, with a commitment to safeguarding our liberties relating to firearms.
Arizona has led the nation in ensuring the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and I intend to preserve that status. That is why I’m vetoing House Bill 2524.
This bill is unnecessary. As a strong supporter of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment, I believe it’s important that Arizona continue to chart its own course and retain its sovereignty. I see no reason for Arizona to tie ourselves to other states’ decisions on public policy relating to the transfer of firearms. We know what’s best for our state, and I trust the citizens of Arizona and their elected leaders to continue to make wise decisions to protect our Second Amendment rights, whenever and wherever those rights are infringed.”
The governor’s letter can be viewed here.
HB 2524, the “uniform firearms transfer compact” was the brainchild (sic) of Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) and Nick Dranias from the “Kochtopus” Death Star, the Goldwater Institute. Since this model bill is being pursued in other states as well, I have to assume that the “Kochtopus” ALEC is behind it as well. Thorpe bill uses multi-state compacts to defend gun rights.
SB 1266 is an amendment to a “preemption” bill previously passed by the Arizona legislature. SB 1266 adds enforcement provisions to local preemption. It would allow any individual or organization to sue and permit a judge to impose a civil penalty of up to $50,000 on offending communities. Another provision of SB 1266 is unconstitutional: it allows the judge to remove public officials from office for knowing or willful violations of the preemption law in enacting a local gun safety ordinance.
Arizona has express laws pertaining to removal of elected officials for specified conduct that must be followed to the letter of the law to remove an official from office. Legislating ordinances is not one of the specified offenses of misconduct or misfeasance in office. SB 1266 is an attempt to take certain subject matters — gun safety — off the table for consideration. It is the authoritarianism of Second Amendment absolutists who have created a false mythology around the Second Amendment.
The “U.S. Supreme Court has rejected more than sixty cases seeking to expand the very limited right defined in the unprecedented Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller. By repeatedly declining to review lower court decisions upholding federal, state, and local gun laws, the Supreme Court has maintained important limitations on the Second Amendment and has reconfirmed that the Amendment is not an obstacle to smart gun laws that keep our communities safe from gun violence.” Protecting Strong Gun Laws: The Supreme Court Leaves Lower Court Victories Untouched.
SB 1266 is specifically aimed at the Tucson City Council, Councilman Steve Kozachik in particular, for having enacted two common-sense gun safety ordinances a few years ago. The Tucson City Attorney has ignored an opinion by the state Attorney General that the ordinances are in conflict with the state preemption law. Now the City of Tucson Council will have to repeal those two ordinances, or face legal action. The gun nuts have wet dreams fantasizing about removing Steve Kozachik from office for his advocacy of stronger gun safety laws.
HB 2338 is the “nose of the camel under the tent” to permitting firearms on college campuses. HB 2338 specifies that laws against guns on college and university campuses do not apply if the person is on a publicly maintained street, sidewalk or alley that goes adjacent to or through the campus. In other words, you can carry a gun right up to the door, but you cannot go in.
You can bet that the gun fetishists and worshipers will be back with their annual bill to allow students and teachers to carry guns on campus next year. They have succeeded in pursuing this legislation in other “red” states. See, Texas Lawmakers Pass a Bill Allowing Guns at Colleges; Kansas Board of Regents approves gun policy allowing concealed weapons on campus in 2017.
The annual “guns in public buildings” bill died in the Arizona Senate during the rush to sine die. Arizona Senate rejects bill to let guns in public buildings:
The Senate rejected a bill Wednesday that would have allowed concealed-carry permit holders to take firearms into some public buildings.
Republican Sen. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills sponsored the proposal. It would not have allowed permit holders to carry weapons into courtrooms, federal buildings, high schools, universities or the Maricopa Medical Center.
It would have required operators of public establishments such as libraries and city halls to allow permit-holders to carry their firearms or to establish security guards and metal detectors at the facility.
Legislative analysts estimated it could have cost between $4 million and $6 million every year for the additional security in state buildings managed by the Arizona Department of Administration.
Senate Bill 1257 was rejected on a 14-14 tie vote. It could come back under rules that allow reconsideration.
This bill came that close to going to the governor. (It did not come up for reconsideration). This annual bill will be back again next year.
Could you clarify to me what the actual problem is with being permitted to remain armed as I pass on the street or on the sidewalk that is encapsulated by an educational campus? Before this law, to be completely in the “green” legally, I would have to stop prior to entering the campus, unload my gun, store my ammo in a separate place, then secure my firearm in a safe or with a lock (all without allowing anyone to see it, for fear of being charged with display of a weapon), then proceed on my journey to the other side of the campus, and do the reverse.
I have carried a firearm, for the 12 years I have lived in this state, and that to me means all the time, the exception being when I have gone to the the DMV, the post office, and when I was enrolled in a class at the college. In all cases, this required me to leave my firearm in the car, and to park outside their designated parking lots. In all the 12 years I have removed my firearm once from its holster intending to use it, and once I have maintained a grip on the firearm without withdrawing it. Both times were in situations were I was being threatened with deadly force. I was happy to have the option to use my firearm if I needed to. Fortunately I did not have to fire.
Unifying gun laws throughout the state makes it easier for gun owners to responsibly respect the laws and limitations on carrying. for instance Native American reservations, National Parks, National Forests, and Wilderness Areas, all have different laws concerning firearms. Add to that the issues with carry in certain buildings, and formerly the areas surrounding educational institutions, and then private property owners rights to limit firearms, it is very confusing and an exercise with a mapping program and several hours of research to navigate any substantial drive, especially in the metro areas of Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Payson, or Prescott.
I do not have the information to say that the bill was intended to attack Tucson’s law about reporting a stolen firearm, and I am not educated on the law itself, however as an owner, my primary concern with such a law, is that it would be all but impossible for me to report stolen guns within 48 hours, unless a provision was made for 48 hours after my discovery. I do not go and worship the inside of my safe everyday, just last week I opened it for the first time in 4 weeks. Otherwise, that sounds like a very responsible law.
I am a firearm owner, enthusiast, and trainer. I do support the expansion of places to carry a firearm, because I believe people can, and should be responsible for their own safety. However even small additional allowances in exactingly locations, allow me to go about my day, without having to make massive course adjustments, or to leave my firearm unattended in a vehicle, where it is so much easier for someone to take it from than it is inside my waistband. Which in my mind is way worse, than a trained and skilled individual carrying.
I’m trying to figure out how I’ve made it to 56 years of age without ever owning a firearm.
Even back in the days of my wasted youth, living in bad neighborhoods, renting a room from some bikers (all armed, all the time), working in the worst parts of Oakland, Richmond, and East Palo Alto, CA, hanging out late at night in some rough bars (guitar players do that), I’ve never felt the need to arm myself.
Been in a few bar fights, sometimes walked away sometimes limped, never felt the need to draw down on another human being.
I suppose it’s all in what you intend for your life to be like. I intend to not need a weapon as I go about my day.
I do occasionally have a good laugh when I see some open carry dude in the CircleK down the street, because you can’t be too safe on the mean streets of Ahwatukee.
anti gun nuts have cost the democratic party dearly. anti gun nuts said bernie sanders position on gun control would hurt him with voters and help hillary. opposite turns out to be true. poll has been taken comparing trump to lice notice rachel madcow didn’t dare reveal poll comparing hillary to lice! hillary’s male gender gap is worse then trump’s female gender gap see latest polls in battle ground states.
Wake up Sheeple!
The Ammosexual lifestyle is being forced on our children, into our schools, into our places of worship, into our businesses.
Can I, as a Pacifist, refuse to sell a wedding cake to one of these Ammosexuals, based on my religious beliefs?
No, the government will come in and violate my RIGHTS just to further the Ammosexual Agenda!
Ammosexuality is a CHOICE, people, WAKE UP!
/sarcasm