PDA

View Full Version : AZ campus carry bill passes house, ready for signature


CalBear
04-07-2011, 4:47 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-arizona-guns-idUSTRE73689Y20110407

The Republican-led House voted 33 to 24 to allow firearms to be carried in the open or concealed in public rights of way, such as campus streets and roadways.

...

The measure now goes to Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer. She has not said if she will sign it into law but has been a strong gun-rights advocate in the past.

Maestro Pistolero
04-07-2011, 5:10 PM
So all the criminals have to do is act normal until they get inside the buildings, then kill/rape/maim all the disarmed victims inside with impunity.

You understand this bill is ALLOW carry, right?

intheknow
04-07-2011, 5:10 PM
So all the criminals have to do is act normal until they get inside the buildings, then kill/rape/maim all the disarmed victims inside with impunity.

uhhhh.... you mean IF they survive the wall of bullets from the others that are carrying?

N6ATF
04-07-2011, 5:13 PM
You understand this bill is ALLOW carry, right?

NOT within buildings, i.e. where everybody goes.

uhhhh.... you mean IF they survive the wall of bullets from the others that are carrying?

What others? Nobody can lawfully carry in the buildings. Or to and from the buildings. So effectively, nobody but police, anywhere.

bulgron
04-07-2011, 5:36 PM
This is another half-arsed AZ bill, just like banning people who don't drink alcohol, at all, ever, from carrying at restaurants that serve alcohol. Why did they compromise? It looks like a party-line vote. They should have gone all the way. They should have duplicated Utah's law.

I wish California could be as "half-arsed" as AZ.

InGrAM
04-07-2011, 5:59 PM
I wish California could be as "half-arsed" as AZ.

+1.... Ohhhh the things I would do with all the freedom they have :rolleyes:

HondaMasterTech
04-07-2011, 6:12 PM
At least they are taking steps in the right direction.

MP301
04-08-2011, 4:42 AM
P.S. I don't believe this is a 'perfect is the enemy of the good' situation. All these "inside certain buildings, carry is still banned" laws do is herd sheeple to a slaughter worse than if they had all been unconstitutionally disarmed outside.

If people panic evacuate, the shooter who blended in by carrying concealed outside to get unlawfully inside will blend in the exodus and move on to the next building, and those armed outside will be powerless, as they are not police and cannot stop and frisk all those running for their lives.

AZ looks like they are using the anti's playbook...but for good instead of evil. Baby steps.... I think AZ is rockin pretty good.

Also, from what i understand, there have been enough of these school shootings to get a profile on the people that do the shooting. They go where there are no guns, start shooting people until someone shows up with a gun...then they usually kill themselves.

Your scenario above could happen, but its not likely - if you go on other active shooter scenarios in a gun free zones. The shooter is whacked, expects to die, but is also a big time coward. Just the fact the people are known to carry in a given area might reduce the chances of a shooting before it ever starts. Who knows for sure?

jl123
04-08-2011, 5:00 AM
AZ looks like they are using the anti's playbook...but for good instead of evil. Baby steps.... I think AZ is rockin pretty good.

Also, from what i understand, there have been enough of these school shootings to get a profile on the people that do the shooting. They go where there are no guns, start shooting people until someone shows up with a gun...then they usually kill themselves.

Your scenario above could happen, but its not likely - if you go on other active shooter scenarios in a gun free zones. The shooter is whacked, expects to die, but is also a big time coward. Just the fact the people are known to carry in a given area might reduce the chances of a shooting before it ever starts. Who knows for sure?

That's what I was thinking too. Baby steps.

yellowfin
04-08-2011, 5:03 AM
"A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow." -- George S. Patton

J.D.Allen
04-08-2011, 7:30 AM
All I have to say is this: :D:D:D

N6, you are a great 2A patriot, but take a chill pill bud. You live in a state that doesn't have half of the freedoms we enjoy here. Yes, you are right, it's still far from what the constitution prescribes, but it's one of the best sets of laws we have in this country. Come out sometime and breathe the free air. Carry 'till your heart's content. It may change your perspective a little.

CHS
04-08-2011, 7:41 AM
This is another half-arsed AZ bill, just like banning people who don't drink alcohol, at all, ever, from carrying at restaurants that serve alcohol. Why did they compromise? It looks like a party-line vote. They should have gone all the way. They should have duplicated Utah's law.

GOA called, they're looking for more "no-compromise" members....

bulgron
04-08-2011, 8:10 AM
Your scenario above could happen, but its not likely - if you go on other active shooter scenarios in a gun free zones. The shooter is whacked, expects to die, but is also a big time coward. Just the fact the people are known to carry in a given area might reduce the chances of a shooting before it ever starts. Who knows for sure?

The only way I can even remotely see the scenario playing out is international terrorists looking for a huge body count. (If you recall, there were some who took over a school in Russia a few years back.) However, the reality of it is that most campuses immediately go into lock down mode once a shooting occurs. This means no one is going to be wandering from building to building, massacring whole classrooms as they go. Well, all assuming the campus is efficient at implementing the lock down.

But at the end of the day, the scenario described is really REALLY unlikely. As in "Scary Hollywood Blockbuster Movie Unlikely." Could it happen? I suppose. But I'd way rather worry about getting hit by an asteroid because it's a more realistic threat.

Guns do definitely need to be allowed in the classroom, because that aspect of the law will prevent students from carrying to and from class. But, as others have noted, baby steps are required.

I wish California was even 1/10th as good on guns as is Arizona.

Connor P Price
04-08-2011, 8:36 AM
But I'd way rather worry about getting hit by an asteroid because it's a more realistic threat.


:eek: We should ban those things! Think about the children!!!!

Lost.monkey
04-08-2011, 9:14 AM
Good example: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/08/opponents-gun-free-zones-universities-unlikely-hero-nevada-woman/

I'm sure there are a TON of victims, but they probably won't come out like this woman has.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 11:05 AM
This means no one is going to be wandering from building to building, massacring whole classrooms as they go.

All the massacres I can remember have gone this way. What if there are no gunshots to be heard in the first place? Guns aren't the only weapons.

Well, all assuming the campus is efficient at implementing the lock down.

They practically never are, from what I have read. Lock downs, sirens, text messages, fail, fail, fail.

Guns do definitely need to be allowed in the classroom, because that aspect of the law will prevent students from carrying to and from class.

Ah, I didn't even think about that. It's even more worthless than I thought. If you are a student or staff member, or anybody who goes inside any building (vendors, prospective students, parents, visitors), you can't carry, so there will be nobody to stop any crime in progress other than campus police.

AZ looks like they are using the anti's playbook...but for good instead of evil. Baby steps.... I think AZ is rockin pretty good.

Also, from what i understand, there have been enough of these school shootings to get a profile on the people that do the shooting. They go where there are no guns, start shooting people until someone shows up with a gun...then they usually kill themselves.

Your scenario above could happen, but its not likely - if you go on other active shooter scenarios in a gun free zones. The shooter is whacked, expects to die, but is also a big time coward. Just the fact the people are known to carry in a given area might reduce the chances of a shooting before it ever starts. Who knows for sure?

Premeditated murderers who won't necessarily use guns, will see this for the sham that it is. Practically nobody will be able to carry as there are no (non-athletic) classes held completely outdoors at AZ universities. The gun free zone campuswide is effectively still in place with the building ban still in place.

GOA called, they're looking for more "no-compromise" members....

There was no need to compromise, and what was the "compromise", exactly? What we got was a facade of doing something for us, while it was practically nothing.

AZ looks like they are using the anti's playbook...but for good instead of evil.

A feel-good bill that makes gun owners feel good, but effectively achieves nothing.

uyoga
04-08-2011, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE=N6ATF;6158704]What others? Nobody can lawfully carry in the buildings.QUOTE]

Criminals are, by definition, exempt from this law.

bulgron
04-08-2011, 12:14 PM
A feel-good bill that makes gun owners feel good, but effectively achieves nothing.

In football, not every play results in a first down, much less a touch down. Sometimes you just pick up a yard or two. This is one of those "little" plays that sets AZ up for the big play.

First they get guns onto campus, albeit not in the classroom. Then, in a year or so, they make the small adjustment to the law that allows guns into the classrooms.

This is the way politics works. It requires patience. So, patience....

CHS
04-08-2011, 12:16 PM
There was no need to compromise, and what was the "compromise", exactly? What we got was a facade of doing something for us, while it was practically nothing.


We got an expansion of gun carry rights.

PERIOD.

That's what we got. In LESS THAN A YEAR from the last couple expansions of gun rights for AZ.

And you're complaining. Classy.

Again, sounds like you're just drinking the GOA cool-aid.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 12:21 PM
Except since it's not JUST classrooms, it's all "campus buildings" (including non-portable bathrooms) according to Reuters, there is effectively nowhere anybody but police can carry, unless they are those who have no business at the campus other than passing through and not entering a single building, which means they'd have to wear diapers and/or catheter bags, and who the hell is going to do that?
The building prohibition nullifies the "play" for more civil rights. No movement on the field. Second down and 10.

bdsmchs, keeping the building prohibition in mind (meaning you can't carry to, then inside, then from buildings), can you provide any examples of someone who can lawfully carry?

CHS
04-08-2011, 12:42 PM
bdsmchs, keeping the building prohibition in mind (meaning you can't carry to, then inside, then from buildings), can you provide any examples of someone who can lawfully carry?

You're just going to absolutely and blindly refuse to acknowledge that this is an expansion of rights, aren't you?

Hundreds, if not thousands, of acres worth of school properties are about to go from "carry = jail" to "carry allowed".

How do we regain gun rights again? The same way they were taken from us. One cut at a time.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 12:57 PM
Ok, fine. I acknowledge this is an expansion of rights for the one person who wears diapers and spends their entire time on school property outdoors.

bulgron
04-08-2011, 1:32 PM
Ok, fine. I acknowledge this is an expansion of rights for the one person who wears diapers and spends their entire time on school property outdoors.

If I had a kid going to school in AZ, and I wanted to go pick them up without going into any buildings there, I can now do that. This is a win.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 1:44 PM
If I had a kid going to school in AZ, and I wanted to go pick them up without going into any buildings there, I can now do that. This is a win.

Wait, this applies to K-12 too? Way to go, Reuters, for making this seem way more miniscule than it is.

dustoff31
04-08-2011, 4:16 PM
Wait, this applies to K-12 too? Way to go, Reuters, for making this seem way more miniscule than it is.

No, this is for colleges and universities. But there is another bill that addresses K-12.








There seems to be a good deal of confusion over this bill. Here is the fact sheet from the AZ legislature.

It's not perfect. But's it is a lot better than before.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/summary/s.1467jud_aspassed.doc.htm

ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fiftieth Legislature, First Regular Session

AMENDED
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1467

educational institution; concealed weapons

Purpose

Prohibits the governing board of an educational institution from adopting or enforcing any policy or rule prohibiting the lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a public right-of-way.

Background

Current law requires the governing board of every education institution to adopt rules for the maintenance of public order on all property of any educational institution under its jurisdiction that is used for educational purposes and must provide a program for the enforcement of its rules. The rules must govern the conduct of students, faculty and other staff and all members of the public while on the property of the educational institution. The penalties for violations must be clearly set forth and enforced and are required to include provisions for the ejection of a violator from the property and, in the case of a student, faculty member or other staff violator, suspension or expulsion or any other appropriate disciplinary action. It further requires any deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or explosive used, displayed or possessed by a person in violation of an adopted rule to be forfeited and sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of according to law. However, this does not: a) preclude school districts from conducting approved gun safety programs on school campuses; or b) apply to private universities, colleges, high schools or common schools or other private educational institutions (A.R.S. 13-2911).

A.R.S. 9-461 defines a right-of-way as any public right-of-way and includes any area required for public use pursuant to any general or specific plan.

S.B. 1467 prohibits the governing board of a public university from enacting or enforcing any policy or rule prohibiting the lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a public-right-of way.

There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund.

Provisions

1. Prohibits the governing board of an educational institution from adopting or enforcing any policy or rule prohibiting the lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a public right-of-way.

2. Makes technical and conforming changes.

3. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

Amendments Adopted by Committee of the Whole

Removes proposed language that prevents an educational institution governing board from prohibiting the possession of a concealed weapon or the transportation or storage of a firearm in a vehicle and replaces it with language that prevents an education institution governing board from prohibiting the lawful possession or carrying of a weapon on a public-right-of-way.

Senate Action

JUD 02/14/11 DP 5-3-0-0
3rd Read 03/14/11 21-7-2-0

Prepared by Senate Research
March 23, 2011
GK/SL/tf

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 4:29 PM
Alright, so the impression I got from Reuters was correct all along.

dustoff31
04-08-2011, 4:41 PM
Alright, so the impression I got from Reuters was correct all along.

Generally, yes.

But as the article mentioned, there are still questions. Chief among them for example:

A.R.S. 9-461 defines a right-of-way as any public right-of-way and includes any area required for public use pursuant to any general or specific plan.

So if ASU for example, has a plan to educate the public in classrooms, is the classroom a public right of way?

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 6:15 PM
Then we run into the public versus private definition debate a la Theseus's BS CA GFSZ case, which is not binding in AZ.

Does any general or specific plan require the public to be allowed at any or all functions held at the campus, absolutely free (without license)? Judging by the massive resistance by the university administrations to honor fundamental human rights and fight crime, I doubt they will allow their plans to open the right-of-way to inside buildings. Everything will require money. Hell, if the non-portable bathrooms aren't reserved for fee payers already, they will be (signs saying "students and staff only", coin-op, student ID swipe, within a larger mixed-use controlled access building, etc...)

So back to square one: legislate something that has some force in law (for more than the one person who wears a diaper) or sue.