Guns at swimming pools? Seriously?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Is that a handgun tucked in your Speedo? Or are you just really happy to see me big boy!"

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed a bill that would loosen restrictions on carrying guns in public buildings, including city halls, libraries and municipal swimming pools.

Jaws was just a movie you idiot. That's not a shark, it's just a fat kid with a snorkel. Geezus! What kind of "afraid of his own shadow" freak needs to pack heat in his Speedo at the swimming pool? Get some psychiatric help already for your irrational fears and phobias, will ya?

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who sponsored one of the other bills, admitted the gun bills still need some work. "There are government facilities that need to be secured, but does the swimming pool need to be secured?" Gould asked. "I would argue probably not."

The Senate Judiciary Committee also passed the "guns on campus" bill. More than a dozen witnesses from law enforcement, university officials, and student organizations testified against the bill. Two witnesses testified in favor of the bill: some guy who has never heard of you either fom Tempe and, of course, the lobbyist for the NRA. Guess who the committee listened to? That's right, the NRA lobbyist PAC-ing "swift boat" attack ads — way more scary to politicians than guns. Senate panel advances guns on campus bill:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed Senate Bill 1474, which requires public universities and community colleges to allow anyone age 21 or older with a concealed-carry permit to carry a gun on campus. The schools can keep the guns out of buildings, stadiums and classrooms if they provide secure gun lockers.

The committee also passed a bill that would loosen restrictions on carrying guns in public buildings, including city halls, libraries or municipal swimming pools.

The bills now go to a vote of the full Senate and then to the House for consideration. If they pass the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer signs them into law, they would go into effect this summer.

* * *

Supporters and opponents of the Arizona campus gun bill rallied at the Capitol before the hearing and then packed the hearing room to testify before the committee.

More than a dozen people spoke against the bill. Two, including the lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, spoke in support.

Jennifer Longdon, a Phoenix mother of an Arizona State University student and a survivor of gun violence, spoke against the bill. She said both she and her fiance were trained gun owners and were armed when they were hit by "random" gunfire in 2004. Longdon ended up paralyzed.

"This isn't a theoretical discussion for me," Longdon said. "In that moment when bullets start flying and adrenaline and fear are pumping, to expect an untrained person to act with clarity and precision is hubris."

Longdon said until now, her biggest fear for her college son was "some regrettable tattoo."

"To worry that a roommate might be a binge drinker and a gun owner at the same time brings a chill to what is left of my spine," she said.

* * *

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the bill. Arizona State University Police Department Chief John Pickens testified.

"The intent may be good, but we believe this will result in unintended consequences," Pickens said.

He said the current requirements to get a concealed-carry permit in Arizona have been watered down and don't require enough hands-on training.

"There is no guarantee that a person has fired a gun in years, or for that matter ever fired the gun he or she is going to be carrying," Pickens said. "And we are dealing with an age group that a number of times doesn't always use the best judgment."

Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, was the lone Republican dissenter. Yarbrough said his no vote was based on the permit requirements being watered down over the past several years.

SB 1448, sponsored by Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, modifies the definitions 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.

"If it is a public establishment, it should be secured," Smith said.

Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police lobbyist John Thomas spoke against this bill.

"City Hall would no longer be able to keep weapons out of the building unless there is an officer present whenever the building is open," he said.

As I pointed out the other day, these are those "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!