Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Remember way back to the start of the legislative session when Arizona's media villagers prognosticated that there would not be any bills for guns in schools or guns in public buildings this year in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December, and especially now that "Second Amendment remedies" wingnut Sen. Ron Gould (R-Crazyland) was no longer in the legislature? Boy, were they wrong.
Ron Gould was among the usual suspects who sponsored SB 1201 in 2011, which would have required that guns be allowed into
public buildings and events unless they have metal detectors, armed security guards, gun lockers and signs.
The bill was drafted by the Citizens Defense League (not to be confused with the Justice League, even though these gun-totin' vigilantes with a Superman complex believe they are). Our Tea-Publican legislature passed this bill, only to be vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.
And who could ever forget SB 1448 in 2012, the "guns at municipal swimming pools" bill, sponsored by then Sen. Steve Smith (R-Maricopa), which would have
modified the definition of public buildings and public events to only
apply to those with armed security. Under the bill, it would only be a
crime to knowingly enter a public building or event with a gun if the
entrances were secured by an armed guard. If there's no guard, there's
no crime. This bill was held in the House after passing the Senate, and died sine die.
Lobbyist Charles Heller of the Citizens Defense League is back again with an only slightly modified bill to try again, with Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) as his water boy this year. HB 2554 would force local governments in Arizona to allow people to carry guns into public buildings unless secured in gun lockers.
The bill currently includes public stadiums and conference centers, one of the reasons Governor Brewer vetoed SB 1201 in 2011, but Kavanagh says he plans to
remove that portion of the bill if House Speaker Andy Tobin
allows his bill to go to the full chamber for a vote. House panel OKs bill involving gun lockers at buildings:
The bill passed 5-2, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it.
Kavanagh said the goal of the bill is to eliminate some
problems and inequities encountered by people who carry guns. He said
individuals who visit a public building carrying a weapon are often
frustrated when they can’t easily find a secure locker to store it while
in the building. He said some people then just carry it in anyway or
are deterred from entering the public building.
“It causes non-compliance,” he said. “When people don’t have a readily available lockbox, people go in with guns anyway.”
Here's a clue, geniuses — leave you're damn guns at home! Problem solved. Quit being such dicks.
The lockbox does not have to be in every public building,
but within 200 feet of each building’s main entrance, Kavanagh said. So
if a city-hall complex has several buildings near each other, only one
locker would be needed.
The law would also create a tougher Class 1 misdemeanor
for someone with a gun entering a public building secured by a police
officer or an armed security guard and metal detectors, and a lesser
Class 3 misdemeanor for entering a building that only has a sign.
The pro-Second Amendment organization Arizona Citizens
Defense League is behind the bill. [The usual suspects support this bill: the National Rifle Association, Arizona Citizens Defense League and the
Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association]. ACDL has attempted similar bills the
past two years, but Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed both.
* * *
Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, [correctly] called the bill an unfunded mandate. Kavanagh estimated each gun locker would cost $400 to $500.
[According to an analysis by legislative staff for SB 1201 in 2011, it would cost venues
about $5,000 per door to install a stationary metal detector, signage
and a gun locker. It would cost $45,000 to $90,000 annually pay for
armed security at each door.]
As I posted back in 2011: "I suggest this law require that a line appear on every ticket purchase for the 'Citizens Defense League Surcharge $__' so we know exactly how much these assholes are costing us for their gun fetish."
“There are some areas of the city where we just don’t want
weapons,” Gallego said. “I’m sorry there are some people who live in a
state of paranoia where they have to have their weapon with them at all
times, but I don’t see how that has to be at taxpayer cost.”
As I posted in 2012, these are "unecessary government
regulations" that drive up the cost of doing business that Tea-Publicans
are always whining about. And this would cost taxpayers money just to
humor the "happiness is a warm gun" crowd. Why not charge gunowners a
user fee and let them pay for it? Typical Tea-Publicans: always making demands without having to pay for it (unfunded mandates). Deadbeats!