AZ - Lawmakers move to limit gun-free zones


PDA

rick_reno
January 28, 2003, 10:01 AM
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0127gunbill27.html

Lawmakers move to limit gun-free zones


By Chris Fiscus
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 27, 2003


City and state buildings have them. Schools have them. Large employers have them.


They are gun-free zones, areas where people must not take their weapons, even if they have a concealed weapons permit.

But some lawmakers say the idea is an affront to the Constitution, and they're pushing a bill that would take a swipe at the zones.

House Bill 2320 would make those who establish a gun-free zone liable for damages if someone is forced to check his or her weapon and then a crime occurs, assuming a case can be made that the gun could have helped stop the crime.

If the crime is an act of terrorism or harms kids younger than 16 or adults 70 or older, the entity that prohibited guns would be liable for triple the damages.

Rep. Randy Graf, R-Green Valley, who is sponsoring the bill, doesn't understand why law-abiding citizens, such as those who have been issued a concealed weapons permit, have to stop and hand over their gun when they enter a certain building.

"Why do things change when you cross one doorway?" he asked.

Criminals will ignore the warning stickers and find a way to bring a gun in, he said, leaving inside unarmed people who have the constitutional right to have a gun.

The bill, he acknowledged, would apply to the state Capitol.

While it's a clear constitutional issue for Graf and other supporters, some are strongly opposed to the bill.

"We worked very hard to get the gun-free zones for parks and to have (gun) lockers in our public buildings," said Norris Nordvold, Phoenix's intergovernmental programs director.

"Before, people were getting killed or shot in parks, and we lost two people in our personnel building in the city of Phoenix," he said, referring to the day someone opened fire in that city building.

"The bill implies that everyone should be carrying a weapon so that if you're in the library or so that if you're in the park, you should be able to shoot back," Nordvold said.

He will urge Phoenix officials to oppose the bill.

Not everyone agrees. Rep. Phil Hanson, R-Peoria, is co-sponsoring the bill.

He has a concealed weapons permit and had his background checked, so he wonders why he sees a gun-free sticker at a mall or a sporting event or a hospital and has to store his gun.

"I find it very offensive," he said.

Hanson hopes the bill will persuade some to rethink their weapons bans.

"It's the idea that I want institutions to know they have a liability for taking that stand and keeping weapons out of their establishments," he said.

The question is whether the bill will make it out of the Legislature.

Graf knows this "is one of the bills a lot of people will have a little heartburn with," but he's optimistic.

Graf also has introduced House Bill 2321, which would make carrying a concealed weapon without a permit punishable by a $50 fine, rather than a Class 1 misdemeanor.

For example, Graf argues: Say he has a weapon in plain view. If it starts raining and he puts on a jacket, he asks, "suddenly I become a criminal?"

If you enjoyed reading about "AZ - Lawmakers move to limit gun-free zones" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
January 28, 2003, 12:13 PM
Hit them where it hurts. Very smart, down there.

BTW, zero out the budget for each police department that is against this bill.

WhoKnowsWho
January 28, 2003, 03:10 PM
I'm really hoping this goes through. I don't have my CCW yet mainly because most places I go (restaurants) I wouldn't even be able to take it in.

denfoote
January 28, 2003, 03:50 PM
E-mails already sent to state critters!! Phone call planned as soon as I get off line!! :D

One problem: Janet Napolarino!!!

rock jock
January 28, 2003, 03:59 PM
you should be able to shoot back
Yes, its much better to hide. Just ask the survivors of the Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas back in the 80's.

Sprout
January 28, 2003, 04:11 PM
"'Why do things change when you cross one doorway?' he asked."

---

I don't know, the whole concept of private property rights? If a business won't let you bring your gun, don't give them your business. If your job won't let you carry, don't work there.

If the government can force you to let people in carrying guns because of the Constitution, they can make you let picketers or protestors in the buillding. Freedom of speech and all that. Do a Google search of "Pruneyard;" it can and has happened.

It cuts both ways fellas ...

bpisler
January 28, 2003, 04:41 PM
They say parks are gun free zones,not so if you have a CCW.

rock jock
January 28, 2003, 05:08 PM
Sprout,

I don't think anybody would argue that point; however, as it is written, the proposed bill would simply make store owners responsible for their actions. IOW, if they choose to disarm their patrons, that is perfectly fine, but they should be prepared to accpet whatever liability is associated with the consequences of that action. They are essentially saying to each person that crosses through their door, "I will protect you enough that you won't need a gun."

Pendragon
January 28, 2003, 05:25 PM
I think that if people cannot bar specific classes of people (race, sex, religion, etc) then they should not be allowed to bar armed people without consequence.

Now, you may be able to make a good case that people should be allowed to bar certain classes of people - however, that simply will not fly in our society. So - I like what this guy is doing - use the forced tolerance and reduced property rights against the commies who promote this stuff.

What is important is that some of the pro gun people are playing offense these days. Certainly we are playing offense to come back from a serious scoring deficit, but it is still playing offense.

Also note that they are not saying that they cannot bar self defense - only that they are liable if something should happen that could have been mitigated by a proper tool.

Do you think buildings should be allowed to bar all fire extinguishers? How about block and lock all exits and obstruct easy exit routes? I mean - its their private property right? Why should they be forced to have fire exits and limits on room capacity and sprinklers and such?

Because if there were ever such a thing as a resonable restriction of a right, the fire code would be it.

I see this the exact same way.

Sprout
January 28, 2003, 05:42 PM
Pendragon and rock jock:

You both have really good points that I hadn’t fully explored. You both are right, imposing a liability is not the same as a prohibition. But it is a restriction, and a pretty big one.

Take for example cell phones. I may think that cell phones are a nuisance in my restaurant, and I want to exclude them. So how about a law that I can exclude phones from my restaurant (or home?), but I am liable if someone is harmed because they didn't get an important call?

Sure it is less of a restriction, but it still is a pretty big risk for the landowner. If a property owner thinks that guns are dangerous (even if we think he is wrong), why shouldn’t he be able to prohibit them? It is my opinion that if you don't like it, don't go there (BTW I have a much bigger problem with prohibiting the carrying of weapons on government land).

* Edited for typos *

Standing Wolf
January 28, 2003, 10:04 PM
I think it's a great idea.

LiquidTension
January 28, 2003, 11:37 PM
I agree with the idea of not giving people business if they do not support my rights. I really like the idea of making them pay if I am not allowed to defend myself. After all, it IS their fault.

blades67
January 28, 2003, 11:55 PM
Take for example cell phones. I may think that cell phones are a nuisance in my restaurant, and I want to exclude them. So how about a law that I can exclude phones from my restaurant (or home?), but I am liable if someone is harmed because they didn't get an important call?


Sprout, imagine this:

You're sitting in a Luby's and a truck come crashing through the front window. The driver gets out and shoots at you. You reach down and feel your empty holster. The gunman shoots again and kills you. After your death Luby's claims no responsibility for your death and your family is left with nothing.

Somehow I don't think not using a cellphone would have the same outcome.:rolleyes: You strike me as being a bit naive about this.

Sprout
January 29, 2003, 12:29 PM
Blade67, I think that I agree with your feeling that if something bad were to happen I would want to be able to stop it. However, I’ve been called on my cell to take my father to the emergency room, I’ve gotten calls from small female friends with flat tires at night, and I’ve used my cell to call EMS for a man having an epileptic seizure in a restaurant where I was eating. While I may be naïve, and if I were a business owner I would gladly welcome CCW holders, I think that banning cell phones in restaurants or stores would cause much more harm than banning guns.

I think (just my opinion) that most people here with CCW permits and cell phones have prevented more harm by calling for help in emergencies or receiving calls for help than shooting it out with goblins.

Again, I think that all rational shop owners should welcome weapons, but I think that it smacks of liberal elitist paternalism to take away people’s rights to their property because you think that you know better. Again, if you don’t want to respect the property owner’s right—for whatever reason—go somewhere else.

Funny how many people who don’t want the government taking away their rights have no problem when the government takes away someone else’s rights.

By the way, how would you feel were the shoe on the other foot and a law were proposed that allowed property owners to permits guns on the property, but held them responsible for any harm caused by the people with guns?

Silver Bullet
January 29, 2003, 01:58 PM
The bill implies that everyone should be carrying a weapon so that if you're in the library or so that if you're in the park, you should be able to shoot back
Duh.

thaddeus
January 30, 2003, 12:51 AM
"Before, people were getting killed or shot in parks, and we lost two people in our personnel building in the city of Phoenix," he said, referring to the day someone opened fire in that city building.


And the "gun free zone" sign would have stopped this shooting? Or did/would the murderer just ignore that silly sign that says he can't bring a bun in and murder people?
These people cannot see that a "gun free zone" sign does not ward off criminals like garlic to a vampire, but simply disarmd the citizens and give the criminals free reign.


I do like to see our side on the offensive.

PATH
January 30, 2003, 01:13 AM
Hi, this is a gun free zone and I am unarmed! Would you please be so kind as to not shoot me? I would really appreciate it!

:banghead: :fire: :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "AZ - Lawmakers move to limit gun-free zones" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!