A interesting bill or two. Arizona.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BBQJOE

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
737
Location
ARIZONA
I just got an email listing a few bills that are moving along.
I find HB 2554 most interesting.
I find it almost impossible to believe, or enforce, but who knows?
It would put some serious pressure and costs onto anti-gun folks.
My question is the definition of "public building".



HB 2433 would eliminate the statutory age cap (currently 45 years old) on who is a member of the state militia (i.e., all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms).

HB 2554 is an AzCDL-requested bill that would require operators of public property, wishing to ban weapons, to restrict access to the property and provide armed guards and metal detectors as well as storage lockers. If an operator of a public building does not comply with the security requirements, the prohibition of firearms would not be enforceable.
 
BBQJOE said:
I just got an email listing a few bills that are moving along.
I find HB 2554 most interesting.
I find it almost impossible to believe, or enforce, but who knows?
It would put some serious pressure and costs onto anti-gun folks.
My question is the definition of "public building".



HB 2433 would eliminate the statutory age cap (currently 45 years old) on who is a member of the state militia (i.e., all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms).

HB 2554 is an AzCDL-requested bill that would require operators of public property, wishing to ban weapons, to restrict access to the property and provide armed guards and metal detectors as well as storage lockers. If an operator of a public building does not comply with the security requirements, the prohibition of firearms would not be enforceable.
Click to expand...
Needs to be private property too.
 
I think if it's private property that serves customers and/or requires them to enter your building to do business (ie. grocery store, movie theater, convenience store, bank, etc.) it should apply. Almost everywhere we go is private property and that shouldn't matter when it comes to having our Rights. Obviously if it were limited to the places above it wouldn't include individual's homes.
 
Creature said:
5. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased, used, operated, contracted for or controlled by this state or any agency or political subdivision of this state, when used by a governmental entity for a governmental purpose.


http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2554/2013
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Hmmmm.... I suppose I could have done a little more research, huh?
Then again, don't expect too much from me before the coffee kicks in.:D
 
It should not apply to private property.
Click to expand...

When talking personal private property, I agree.

When talking open to the public private property, I disagree.

If you run a business on private property, you concede certain property rights during business hours. You cannot deny access based on age, race, sex, religion, etc. Now, the rights of people to be on that property are contingent on legitimate business interests; You cannot loiter. Patrons also do not have the same rights they do on public property; A private business may prohibit the use of profanity, smoking etc.

So, open-to-the-public private property strikes a balance between the rights of citizens and the rights of property owners.

As such, I agree with business owners having the same standard for weapons prohibitions as public places. If you're not going to allow people to defend themselves on your business property, you need to have reasonable measures to ensure their safety while on the premises.

I run a business from the home. During my designated business hours, on the portions of the property dedicated to the business, I have to abide by certain practices that do not apply within my residence or restricted areas of the property. In CO, trespassing violations on private property can occur without signage and without verbal warning. But during business hours, I cannot accuse someone of trespassing just because they enter the property without express permission.

Here in CO (despite the recent anti-gun horse hockey), private businesses that wish to ban weapons and have it be a violation of law to disregard the policy must have metal detectors permanently installed at all points of public entry. Otherwise, disregarding a "no guns" sign only allows them to ask you to leave if discovered; If you refuse to leave, then it is trespassing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top