The Gun Posse Rides (Over a Cliff) Again

Arizona state lawmakers are looking at requiring government premises to allow citizens to carry weapons on the premises unless they provide storage facilities in which to secure arms within 200 feet of the entrance. Once again, reasonable gun policy is falling victim to knee jerk extremist positions on both sides that have less to do with the real interests of citizens to bear arms, and making good public policy, than with demonstrating ideological conformity and grandstanding, especially by those on the right. Recently, Jeff Smith of the Citizen and my State Rep. Steve Farley squared off in print over this issue. While I find both their points of view rather unconvincing and simplistic, both contain a kernel of valid concerns. The problem is that the way in which the Legislature is approaching this issue is frighteningly shallow, even if their underlying point about public values and civil rights is valid.

As a liberal Democrat with a CCW license
and a gun, I have a foot in each camp on this issue. I think that
Farley and the Democrats’ concerns are well-intentioned, but as a practical matter, the
examples Farley uses to illustrate that concern are profoundly jejune. He worries about misuse of these storage facilities to conceal evidence used in crimes or to facilitate illegal weapons sales. The same criticisms could be leveled at
any anonymous public lockers, such as the ones are bus stations,
airports, and even the prisons. Shall we ban those too because of their
ability to facilitate illegal transfers and to conceal evidence?

The simple fact is that there is a big disconnect in public values when the
state licenses a person to carry a weapon responsibly and then denies
them the ability to carry it on state property. An arrangement such as
these lockers that accommodates the rights of gun owners while
addressing the safety and peace of mind of public employees and other
citizens seems like a fair compromise to me.

That said, there are concerns about the current version of the bill
that need to be addressed. The main reason so many local governments
oppose such a bill is not safety, but cost. The price of installing
such facilities at all public buildings could be prohibitive. The cost
and who bears it should be carefully assessed, but is not even addressed in SB1251. Perhaps the facilities
should not be free to users, but self-supporting. Perhaps mandating
such installation should not be yet another unfunded mandate by the
state government. If the state legislature feels so strongly about gun rights,
they should pony up the money to help local governments to respect those
rights.

There are problems with the anonymity of the system, too. The idea that
you needn’t show any ID to carry a weapon into a government building is
obviously problematic, and is both the central concern of law enforcement and the ideological hobbyhorse of the Right concerning this bill. You do not need permit to carry a weapon openly
in Arizona, but I do not find it outrageous, and I submit that the vast majority of Arizonans would not find it outrageous, that a person wishing to
carry a weapon into a government facility should be be required to identify
themselves as a guarantee of their responsible behavior. As for those
carrying concealed, they should have to identify themselves as a CCW holder, and show their permit and ID. Peaceful, law abiding citizens interested only in defending themselves and others should have no problems with such minimal conditions.

Finally, there are times and places where weapons are simply never
appropriate except for pre-cleared individuals: courts, CPS, prisons,
etc., can and should be designated special security zones where no
outside weapons are allowed. The exclusion of such facilities from the general rule should be supported by specific and well-documented security concerns.
These exceptions should be narrowly tailored to suit a compelling need
for security due to specific concerns and past history, documented in
legislative findings which are the result of a careful process of
hearings and deliberation, not some conclusory, blanket jumble of
potentially sensitive locations based on loose "what if" scenarios
supported only by legislative findings that are not backed by
real-world testimony.

It seems to me that the real issues of public safety and individual rights are ill served when the GOP majority fails to enter into dialog with the Democratic majority to craft compromises that reflect the real concerns on both sides of this, and many other, issues. Creating a give and take that improves public policy is the purpose of the deliberative process and the role of an opposition. But the Arizona GOP too often (with notable exceptions, such as Senate President Bee’s budget process) demonstrates hostility to the whole idea of deliberation and collaboration across the aisle. The result is the sort of hollow grandstanding disguised as law that we see in this bill. SB121 is less public policy than chest-thumping for the benefit of the GOP’s hard-right base, and for that reason alone it should be defeated or vetoed in its current form. Given the GOP’s divisive intent, one can hardly blame Democrats from coming back with uncompromising and fear-based objections. The GOP’s tactics do not encourage engagement and compromise to create thoughtful policy, and that only hurts people like me who are concerned about civil rights, including the right to bear arms, by hollowing out the debate, leaving nothing but a reverberating echo-chamber of uncompromising ideological nonsense. To my mind, this partisan dynamic undermining the public’s business is the best reason to turf the Arizona GOP out of the majority in our state legislature.