Arizona Gun free Zone Act proposed

Yes. This needs to be done.

If there is anyplace better than Texas it has to be Arizona.

If there is anyplace better than Texas it has to be Arizona.

Click to expand...

Ya but we can't shoot people just for a B&E or trying to flee from a B&E....yet.


ETA:
Can someone dig up the people we need to contact to get this passed?

Outlaws, are you sure about that? I thought in AZ you can shoot if you reasonably believe there is no other way to stop someone from committing a class C, B, or A felony, and Burglary is a class C felony.

I'm a little rusty though so please excuse me if that is not correct.

"If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes.


http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

Nope. Only if you feel someones life is at stake, rape, or kidnapping. Thats basically it.
This isn't the actual ARS, but it is from the state of Arizona DPS and includes some ARS references.

But what if you turn them around and then take the Makarov that was in a zip-lock bag in your pocket and put it in their hand?

Disclaimer: For those of you with a heartbeat under 10 beats per minute, this is in jest. This High Road member does not own a Makarov nor does he advocate or intend to do any illegal activities with said non-existent Makarov.

This is a quote from the link I posted. It is hard to believe that is actually from the State of Arizona....the verbiage is....interesting.

b. You may use physical force against another when and to the
extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary
to prevent what a reasonable person would believe to be an
attempt to commit or commission by another of theft or
criminal damage involving tangible movable property
under your possession or control (A.R.S. § 13-408), and
you may use deadly physical force in self-defense, defense
of another or to prevent certain special crimes (see below).

EXAMPLE: Like the law that permits threatening deadly
force to evict a trespasser, the law permitting use of physical
force to stop theft of your property should be tempered by
judgment and tactical considerations. Let's play "what if."
You are sitting at home in your living room in front of
a large window watching TV during the evening. You
suddenly see the motion activated flood light above your
front door illuminate a figure that is using a wire coat hanger
to open your locked Porsche automobile, parked on the
street in front of your house. Can you legally go outside and
physically stop the theft of your prized car from in front of
your house - sure. But should you? Think tactics and
judgment. Let's continue the "what if" game.
You tuck your Beretta model 92F (a 9mm semiautomatic
pistol) into your waistband, put on a jacket to
conceal the gun, and go out to confront the jerk who is
stooped over your beautiful Porsche. You know that you
can use physical force to stop him, so you approach and
shout "Hey, what the hell are you doing?" You plan to deck
this jerk when he turns around. Then . . . the jerk turns and
stands erect as you approach. My God! He is at least six
foot seven and his shoulders completely block the entire
Porsche from your view!
At this point you say to yourself, "I can threaten or
use only physical force to stop this theft, but I don't think my
threat or use of physical force will do anything to this
monster. I cannot threaten deadly force because he is not a
trespasser on my property (and that would be stupid anyway
- recalling the party crasher at your New Year's party). I
cannot use deadly force because my life is not in imminent
danger. I'm screwed!"
Under this scenario, you are really going to feel stupid
just standing there as this guy drives away in your Porsche,
but you did not take time to call the police. Do you recall the
amount of the deductible on your insurance? Wait, let's
continue "what if."
Undeterred by the obvious superior physical abilities
of the guy who will soon be driving your Porsche, you
stupidly say "Leave my car alone, or I'll kick your a--." (Ah!
It is so satisfying to use your right to threaten physical force
to stop the theft of your Porsche.) Then, the monster does
something stupid. He pulls a BIG knife from behind his
back, and says "I'm gonna cut your f---ing head off" and
steps toward you. (Now, aren't you glad that you tucked
your Beretta into your waistband?)
At this point, you will be justified to threaten or use
deadly force in self-defense, and you do so. Unfortunately,
this guy is so BIG that he doesn't drop his knife and cease
being a threat to you until you have used 14 of the 15
rounds in your Beretta, and guess what? Your Porsche
acted as the bullet stop for at least 10 of those rounds.
Aren't you glad that you decided to stop this guy yourself.
Now, how much deductible did you have on your Porsche
insurance?
Obviously, you should have called the police before
going outside to save your precious Porsche. You would
have been wise to wait to let the police handle the situation.
Under this scenario, you proceed at your own risk when you
exercise your right to use physical force to stop a theft. Is it
worth the risk?

Click to expand...

I only see one problem with this law: It's on a state level. This kind of thing needs to be federal.

Andrewsky said:

But what if you turn them around and then take the Makarov that was in a zip-lock bag in your pocket and put it in their hand?

Click to expand...

I assume you meant this as sarasm or a joke... it would seem wise to make use of the "smilies" or such to indicate that you are not making a serious suggestion. Taken out of context a statement like this can be troublesome - for you or others on THR.
Most of us here know you can't seriously make a suggestion like that but there are many younger members - some in High School! - or newer gun owners who may not make that distinction. Certainly any Anti-Gun Person who reads your post will draw their own conclusion as to what Gun Owners in General and THR People in particular advocate. I am not saying to be PC but indicate that you are not serious in some fashion.

Virginia needs a bill like that.... but we all know Governor Kaine (Friend to gun owners.... as long as your not a college student) wouldn't pass it.

Is this in the house, senate, or waiting signature? What is the source of this? Give us some info, and I'll start calling my reps.
Jdude

Virginia needs a bill like that.... but we all know Governor Kaine (Friend to gun owners.... as long as your not a college student) wouldn't pass it.

Click to expand...

I agree. Virginia isn't a bad gun state but there are many things that we need changed (1 handgun/30 days law, "assault firearms" where you need a 3rd form of ID, and restrictions on carrying them with mags over 20rds/etc, and we need to make CCW lifetime and not 5 years then have to renew)
Oh yeah, also regarding "transporting" guns. Right now, since my only vehicle is a pickup truck, how am I supposed to take my guns to the range if they have to be in an area of the vehicle not within reach of passengers? Pickups don't have trunks, and I sure as hell am not just putting my stuff in the bed, even with the locking tonneau cover I have. Right now I just throw my range bag either on the back seat or on the back seat floor.

While I support the bill, passing it and getting it signed by our Democrat governor won't be easy. Business groups, and others representing schools and some churches will fight it tooth and nail.

Gun Free Zones are useless; in that they cannot be enforced against those it is targeted toward. Even worse, they encourage deranged killers to pick them because of the unlikelihood of any resistance. But the warm and fuzzy folks won't see it that way.

Outlaws, according to the instructors (including a lawyer) at my AZ CWP class, you may use deadly force if your home or car are intruded upon while occupied. I can look up the referenced laws in the class notebook after work, if you like.

A.

Now is the time guys. Send you democratic reps a list of all the mass killings in the last decade (most of which happened in "gun free" zones). You can do it! It may be hard, it may be an uphill battle, but it WILL be worth it.

That's my pep-talk for the morning

AZAndy, you are correct. It is in the "Castle Doctrin Law" that was passed in '06.

So I cannot get triple damages because I'm an adult healthy white male?

"But what if you turn them around and then take the Makarov that was in a zip-lock bag in your pocket and put it in their hand?"

A similar comment made in jest got me banned from another site for advocating illegal conduct.

So I cannot get triple damages because I'm an adult healthy white male?

Click to expand...

Probably not. They may want to amend the verbiage to make crimes identified as hate crimes also eligible for treble damages. Hate crimes can be committed against whites.

I find it funny that gun owners do not want responsibility for a gun crime spread among gun owners (as in the case of a gun owner prosecuted when a criminal breaks the law with a weapon stolen from them), but they have no problem with spreading it among the antis (as is the case here where someone exercising their right to ban guns is forced to assume fiscal liability when a criminal again breaks the law). If you can find the business owner who does not want guns to be liable, so too should whomever provided the gun, the store they bought it from, the manufacturer who made it, and the parents for contributing their genetic material to such a devil-spawn. Bull****, you say; so do I. The responsibility should rest wholly and completely with the criminal, and in certain cases on their parents or next-of-kin when those parties would have also been held liable for anything less their child or dependent had done.

I really don't think this is anything more than looking for deep pockets when a psychopath kills, and it's a lose-lose for an entity like a mall management company; you either allow carry of weapons, and antis will take their dollars elsewhere (does AZ allow open carry? Those who don't like guns will certainly not like OC and public businesses will not have any practical means to prevent it), or you prohibit carry of weapons and risk a gunman turning your mall into a shooting gallery, a criminal act which you as the owner had no knowledge of or responsibility for, but for which you ARE now financially liable. What do you think treble damages on a death will be? Juries award money for the emotional pain of a child's loss of a parent, a spouse's loss of their partner, for financial losses equivalent to what the person could reasonably have earned until retirement, for counseling, day care, funeral costs, etc etc. This adds up to millions of dollars PER VICTIM. Businesses, who are also victims here, will be forced to basically pay out life insurance policies for their shoppers in the case of a gunman shooting up the place at the discretion of juries, in addition to their own damages. The families of those killed or injured may well end up with shared ownership of the mall that was attacked. All because the mall wished to exercise the same right that you as a homeowner or other owner of PRIVATE property enjoy (and which the statute exempts by specifying PUBLIC buildings, areas or curtilages as the property subject to this law).

And what happens in the next mall or business shooting where gun owners draw and fire and end up hitting an innocent? The mall could find themselves facing a civil judgment as a deep-pocket co-defendant with the gun owner because they negligently ALLOWED guns in their mall, leading to the injury or death. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I doubt the State Legislature will vote to give the protections that police largely have when they're involved in a shooting to CHLs and businesses that allow open carry. As a police officer, you're protected by that shield while in the course of your duties. As a CHL, you take responsibility for every last bullet you fire and everything they hit.

And even if this works, it has no bearing on institutions receiving federal money, as that falls under federal jurisdiction which has no such liability statute. Schools, universities, hospitals, police stations and other federal land will still be gun-free with absolute impunity and no obligation to pro-actively enforce it. I'm willing to bet state-controlled agencies will not be affected by this either.

Here's what the law will do; anyone still wishing to create a gun-free zone will find themselves obligated to fully enforce it. Trespassing in a gun-free zone with a concealed weapon would still be a crime, and businesses that remain gun-free will make an example of anyone they catch. To do so, they'll employ additional armed security and other anti-gun measures like metal detectors and compulsory searches (sure you don't have to consent, but they have every right to refuse entry if you do) that will be earning their keep. Those businesses that aren't gun-free zones are quickly going to lose business from people who do not wish to be around guns, which is a very significant portion of our society. You're going to find the antis railing that they cannot go about their daily business without being bombarded by scary guns wielded by sociopathic gun nuts (as the Brady Bunch refers to anyone with a CHL), while everyone gets to be frisked at alternating businesses they enter (Good Morning, Tel Aviv!). Meanwhile, as schools are still gun-free zones with little or no pre-emptive enforcement, gunmen who want to cause a lot of pain and suffering will simply walk into a school or hospital and start shooting.

AZAndy said:

Outlaws, according to the instructors (including a lawyer) at my AZ CWP class, you may use deadly force if your home or car are intruded upon while occupied. I can look up the referenced laws in the class notebook after work, if you like.

Click to expand...

KMBRTAC45 said:

AZAndy, you are correct. It is in the "Castle Doctrin Law" that was passed in '06.

Click to expand...

Neither of you are correct, but feel free to post links to information to back it up. Castle Doctrine has ZERO to do with shooting someone who is not threatening life.

I posted the December '06 CCW instructor book that has lost of ARS references all over the place. Nothing says you can shoot someone for being in your home. The person must be armed, or you must think they are armed, or you must fear for you life. This is not the same as Texas law where merely being there illegally is justification.

Effective April 24, 2006, the “Castle Doctrine” was implemented in
Arizona by SB1145 as A.R.S. §§ 13-418 & 13-419:
A person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or
deadly physical force against another person if the person
reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent
peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against
whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or
used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had
unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied
vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another
person against the other person's will from the residential structure
or occupied vehicle. A person has no duty to retreat before
threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force
pursuant to this section. A.R.S. § 13-418.

Click to expand...

That says you must be in fear of your life.
The next part:

13-419. Presumption; exceptions; definition
A. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the
purposes of sections 13-404 through 13-408 and section 13-418 if
the person is acting against another person who unlawfully or
forcefully enters or entered the person's residential structure or
occupied vehicle, except that the presumption does not apply if:
1. The person against whom physical force or deadly
physical force was used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident
of the residential structure or occupied vehicle, including an owner,
lessee, invitee or titleholder, and an order of protection or injunction
against harassment has not been filed against that person.

Click to expand...

You will have the presumption of innocence, but you better hope the incident was not recorded if you were not in immediate danger of your life. I am not saying you won't get away with it at your home, but cameras are all over theses day, and you legally don't have the right.

Oh, thanks for quoting me so now everyone sees the original. I'm talking about AZ_Rebel and revjen45.

I edited my last post. Take what you want from it.

I find it funny that gun owners do not want responsibility for a gun crime spread among gun owners (as in the case of a gun owner prosecuted when a criminal breaks the law with a weapon stolen from them), but they have no problem with spreading it among the antis (as is the case here where someone exercising their right to ban guns is forced to assume fiscal liability when a criminal again breaks the law). If you can find the business owner who does not want guns to be liable, so too should whomever provided the gun, the store they bought it from, the manufacturer who made it, and the parents for contributing their genetic material to such a devil-spawn. Bull****, you say; so do I. The responsibility should rest wholly and completely with the criminal, and in certain cases on their parents or next-of-kin when those parties would have also been held liable for anything less their child or dependent had done.

I really don't think this is anything more than looking for deep pockets when a psychopath kills, and it's a lose-lose for someone like a mall management company; you either allow carry of weapons, and antis will take their dollars elsewhere (does AZ allow open carry? Those who don't like guns will certainly not like OC and public businesses will not have any practical means to prevent it), or you prohibit carry of weapons and risk a gunman turning your mall into a shooting gallery, a criminal act which you as the owner had no knowledge of or responsibility for, but for which you ARE now financially liable. What do you think treble damages on a death will be? Juries award money for the emotional pain of a child's loss of a parent, a spouse's loss of their partner, for financial losses equivalent to what the person could reasonably have earned until retirement, for counseling, day care, funeral costs, etc etc. Businesses, who are also victims here, will be forced to basically pay out life insurance policies for their shoppers in the case of a gunman shooting up the place at the discretion of juries, in addition to their own damages. The families of those killed or injured may well end up with shared ownership of the mall that was attacked. All because the mall wished to exercise the same right that you as a homeowner or other owner of PRIVATE property enjoy (and which the statute exempts by specifying PUBLIC buildings, areas or curtilages as the property subject to this law).

Click to expand...

Perhaps we should just outlaw "Gun-Free Zones"

I seem to remember that we have created severe penalties for people who excercise their right to free association and discriminate against people on the basis of race, sex or creed...