AZ campus carry bill passes house, ready for signature

[N6ATF]

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]

[QUOTE=N6ATF;6158704]What others? Nobody can lawfully carry in the buildings.QUOTE]

Criminals are, by definition, exempt from this law.

[bulgron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[N6ATF]

Alright, so the impression I got from Reuters was correct all along.

[dustoff31]

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:

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]

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.