AZ Gov: Brewer vetoes bill allowing guns on public property

[Midwest]

Brewer vetoes bill allowing guns on public property


"Gov. Jan Brewer rebuffed gun-rights advocates by vetoing for a second time a bill to allow guns on public property, and sent a strong message that such a proposal would need wider support from police, cities and the public before she would sign it."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...ublic-property-brewer-veto.html#ixzz1sPnFAnRk


(Please delete or lock if not appropriate or already on the site.)

This doesn't look good with all the recent anti-gun sentiment recently, I wonder if they can do a veto override.

 

[dogbaloo]

I don't think it's neccesarily a "trend" issue.

If there isn't overwhelming support from sources she cited, then from a political point of view, I think she made the right call. From a constitutionality point, then she's off base.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Midwest]

Further on in the article there is

"Legislative efforts to put guns on university campuses, just outside K-12 school grounds and in homeowners associations all appear to have run into roadblocks this session."

Does this mean those who live in or around areas with homeowners associations cannot carry? Or does this mean that homeowners associations can prohibit carrying?

I understand about their prohibitions against carrying outside of schools. But homeowners associations?

I agree she is constitutionally off base.

 

[TurtlePhish]

"Finally, we're getting some common sense in here saying, 'No, this is bad public-safety policy, and we're not going to allow this to happen,'" Saizow said. "No guns on college campuses, no guns in public events, no guns around schools. The gun lobby has hit its limit, and for good reason."

They always say "common sense" but never have any "sense" to back up what they say... "good reason"- what's the good reason?

 

[Neverwinter]

Further on in the article there is

"Legislative efforts to put guns on university campuses, just outside K-12 school grounds and in homeowners associations all appear to have run into roadblocks this session."

Does this mean those who live in or around areas with homeowners associations cannot carry? Or does this mean that homeowners associations can prohibit carrying?

I understand about their prohibitions against carrying outside of schools. But homeowners associations?

I agree she is constitutionally off base.

It probably means that Homeowners Associations are able to place restrictions on firearms that would get laughed out of most jurisdictions that care about the 2nd amendment.

 

[armoredman]

She did many good things before, so some of her vetoes this session are surprising, yet not surprising. She also vetoed the House Resolution authorized organized resistance to UN troops enforcing unConstitutional actions on Arizona soil. Now we'll see if she vetoes SCR 1011, the Legislative trumpet call that the National Defense Authorization Act is blatantly illegal, or HCR 2004 about state sovereignty, or HCM 2005, calling for Border Patrol to be deployed, to, of all things, THE BORDER.
The first is done, the other two have yet one vote to go.

 

[danez71]

Or does this mean that homeowners associations can prohibit carrying?

This...as I understand it.

Basically when you buy a house with a HOA you agree to abide by the bylaws which are voted on by the home owners in majority (usually 2/3's).

The 'common area', which is private property and controlled by the majority vote, would be subject to private property rights/laws which allow the owner to set the rules. Just ike your private property.

The 'owner' is what ever the majority votes.

This concept is a good basis for not buying in a HOA control residence. If, for example, there are 50 units then you only have 1/50th say as to the rules.

 

[armoredman]

I left an HOA that had no teeth - the housing bubble burst before 10 homes were built/sold in this large area. The HOA did absolutely nothing but demand money, nothing was fixed/taken care of, so I told them to pound sand. If they had told me I couldn't carry where I live, I would have told them to pound sand...harder.

 

[garyh9900]

Hit the poll on the right side of the page...

 

[barstoolguru]

the question

Gov. Brewer vetoed a bill allowing guns on public property. Did she do the right thing?

Yes 83.78%
No 16.22%

Total Votes: 1036

she seems to have the support

 

[armoredman]

Arizonans for Gun Safety, a grass roots organization. So grass roots I've never heard of them in 44 years here. Hmm.

 

[Prince Yamato]

That's 'cause they're "underground"

 

[armoredman]

Ah, so that's it...

 

[rajb123]

This story was featured by Racheal Maddow on Microsoft-NBC (MSNBC) on Thursday night. Maddow begged Brewer to be a guest on her TV show.

I don't beleive this will every happen since MSNBC likely has a political agenda and it is not seen by the pubic as fair and balanced like some other media including, Fox.

Brewer's veto is not warranted and is wrong. Hopefully, the legislature will override her veto and the "carry" measure will become the law of the land.

More armed citizens in more places = a safer community!

 

[armoredman]

I don't think they can override it, the voting wasn't that lopsided. I wish they'd override her on the UN Resolution, too, but that won't happen, either.

 

[AZ]

As a student going to Northern Arizona University who often carries around town I was really hoping for this bill to pass. I often carry in businesses that have "no guns" stickers (I could care less about such policies) but would and could never do so on campus. Not to get too political but I feel Jan Brewer has done little to no good for Arizona and am waiting for a candidate on either side who more honestly supports gun rights. The impression I get from Brewer is that she has no real resolve for the rights of gun owners, she always comes off as a panderer rather than a supporter.

 

[Art Eatman]

Bummer. Howsomever, the thread is more about politics than anything else, not that it could be otherwise...