AZ governor sold us down the road.

Status
Not open for further replies.
armoredman

armoredman

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
19,243
Location
proud to be in AZ
She vetoed both the lifetime CCW permit and the Defensive Display of a Firearm bills, both would have greatly benefited AZ gunowners. She clearly stated in her veto letter on the Defensive Disaply bill that AZ gun owners are unstable and untrustworthy, and allowing them to display a firearm in a defensive manner because it would "escalate a war of words into a battle of bullets".
Her veto letter on the optional lifetime CCW bill she compares CCW permit holders to dishwashers and bartenders, stating thier business related license renewal was only three years, and those exercising thier Consitutional rights should be held down to thier standard.
Governor Napalitano is term limited to two terms only, by AZ Constitution, so good bye and good riddance, but not soon enough. Time to make the whole legislature pro gun again.
 
Well, yeah, but some representatives of the Democratic (sic) party have spoken in favor of the Second Amendment.

She clearly stated in her veto letter on the Defensive Disaply bill that AZ gun owners are unstable and untrustworthy, and allowing them to display a firearm in a defensive manner because it would "escalate a war of words into a battle of bullets".
Her veto letter on the optional lifetime CCW bill she compares CCW permit holders to dishwashers and bartenders, stating thier business related license renewal was only three years, and those exercising thier Consitutional rights should be held down to thier standard.
Click to expand...

More politicians really ought to finish high school.
 
Defenisve display legitimized the lawful display of afirearm to end a confrontation, such as happens so many times a year, according to prof Klecks fine research. Many times the simplydisplay of a firearm is sufficient to end a situation, but some clever criminals have calld PD and filed charges for ag assault - I know of two who did three to five, lost everything, because of that. the bill was a good idea, but Nappy just can't bring herself to understand that.
 
More politicians really ought to finish high school.
Click to expand...

The problem is they do.... They come from the high schools indoctrinated in the latest socialist/marxist thinking. The ones that swallow the kool-aid become politicians or scientologists. The ones who shake off the indoctrination become producers of wealth in the economy.
 
Errrr....

What is the "Defensive Display of Firearms" Bill? I mean, if you pull a gun to use it and the guy runs off, what is the difference? No offense, but it seems like a waste of time bill.

I would veto it because it is pointless. If someone has a gun, they are going to brandish it in their defense de facto, they don't need legal permission to do it.

The more I think about it, the stupider it becomes... They are giving you legal authority to "display" a firearm when someone is beating the crap out of you??? That seems to me the kind of law that comes back and bites 10 years from now.

Cop "You are under arrest"
Home owner "Why??? I was protecting myself, he kicked in my door, I shot."
Cop "You have a DUTY to DISPLAY before you shoot sir."
 
This is from the second edition of Everything You Need About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota:

Defensive Display and Reasonable Force.

Defensive display of a firearm, sometimes called “brandishing,” may be defined as a lawful threat to cause death or serious bodily harm by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force only if necessary. See Model Penal Code sec. 3.11(2). It does not involve the actual discharge of a firearm, for example. Nor does it constitute the “use” of deadly force.

Although there is no Minnesota case law on point, brandishing should be governed by the rules for use of reasonable force set forth in Minnesota Statute 609.06 (see page xxx). This is the usual American rule. As criminal law scholar Wayne R. LaFave says,
“merely to threaten death or serious bodily harm, without any intention to carry out the threat [unless necessary], is not to use deadly force, so that one may be justified in pointing a gun at his attacker when he would not be justified in pulling the trigger.”

This is a common example of the necessity criteria in action prohibiting greater force when lesser force will do. If the assailant continues the attack, use of deadly force (i.e., firing the gun) will be necessary and, therefore authorized. An imminent threat is often not instantaneous. If the threat (even of death or great bodily injury) can be neutralized by a mere counter threat, if safe for the defender, that is certainly allowable even if never mandatory.

Ninety-eight percent of successful defensive gun uses involve mere brandishing - display of the firearm. The defender demonstrates that she is capable of using deadly force and the encounter ends as the assailant flees. Even criminals can weight the odds of their own injury.

Although seldom heard of by the public except in homicide cases, justification defenses like self-defense apply to all crimes. Thus self-defense may be pleaded if as a consequence of a brandishing incident you are charged [under Minnesota law] with assault in the second degree (a felony), with intentionally pointing a gun at or toward another person (a misdemeanor) or with reckless handling or using a gun so as to endanger the safety of another (a misdemeanor).
Click to expand...

The book (the text of which is 95% applicable in all permit states) can be purchased from http://aacfi.com/products/MNEverythingYouNeedToKnow.php. Special editions for Missouri and Kansas are available too as well as a Utah Supplement.

Since this is the general rule in the United States, isn't the Arizona Governor a bit behind in her law studies?
 
What a Waste

Also for those that don't understand Arizona, Napolitano was a Federal Prosecutor before running for Gov. She has and always will side with MORE Gov control and ability to micro manage. Anytime she's been able to open up door for LESS government internvention she vetoes it. Except when it comes to cutting the states throat (illegal immigration) because it's the feds job.

She vetoed a bill that would have allowed innocent men go free from prison because it put the burden of proof back on the prosecution instead of the burden of proof-of-innocence on the self defender.

Sorry to rant.

I'm still having a hard time believing she won in the first place. I know why she won the 2nd time was the opposition was weak.

WHERE ARE OUR GOOD CANDIDATES?!?

WHO DO WE REPLACE HER WITH? Any thougts? J.D. Hayworth?
 
Time to get a good conservative candidate for next election!

I must admit that I voted against her opponent last election and would have to do it again with the same opponent, although I think she has been a terrible gov.

There must have been a lot more voting like me...I had not idea she'd win!
 
A state like Arizona with a Governor with a mindset who could be from Illinois,New York or Maryland.
All those Cub fans from Chicago in the Phoenix suburbs are beginning to take their toll.
They have a 100 year legacy of losing.Napolitano is an extension of this heritage.We have to hope Arizonans wake up to the enemy in their midst.
 
I am actually glad she vetoed the lifetime CCW.

If it had passed it would mean no NICS bypass and reciprocity with other states would have been compromised.
 
I am actually glad she vetoed the lifetime CCW.

If it had passed it would mean no NICS bypass and reciprocity with other states would have been compromised.
Click to expand...

The lifetime CCW was optional. You would have had the choice.
 
mbt2001 said:
Errrr....

What is the "Defensive Display of Firearms" Bill? I mean, if you pull a gun to use it and the guy runs off, what is the difference? No offense, but it seems like a waste of time bill.

I would veto it because it is pointless. If someone has a gun, they are going to brandish it in their defense de facto, they don't need legal permission to do it.

The more I think about it, the stupider it becomes... They are giving you legal authority to "display" a firearm when someone is beating the crap out of you??? That seems to me the kind of law that comes back and bites 10 years from now.

Cop "You are under arrest"
Home owner "Why??? I was protecting myself, he kicked in my door, I shot."
Cop "You have a DUTY to DISPLAY before you shoot sir."
Click to expand...

I just don't know what to say to any of that. It's not true, and I'm not sure where you got it from.

The bill was introduced to keep people out of jail in the event that they had to draw but, as happens in most self defense uses of firearms, they did not have to fire.

I quote here a message from AzCDL's Dave Kopp, who was answering an inquiry on the AZRKBA mailing list. This is from the horse's mouth:

Dave Kopp said:
Basically, to prevent prosecution for simply showing a firearm to deter an impending confrontation. This can, and does, happen quite a bit. See the testimony in the Senate Judiciary committee on the bill, available at ...

http://azleg.granicus.com/ViewSearchResults.php?view_id=7&keywords=HB2629

... for more detail. In particular, listen to Mike Anthony's comments.

As research (Gary Kleck, for instance) shows, a high percentage of potentially violent confrontations are deterred by the simple act of the good guy showing or referring to a firearm. That is, of course, not to say that anyone should depend on that. The old axiom that no one should prepare to draw a gun unless they are prepared to use it still holds true. However, if you put your hand on your firearm and the bad guy runs away, saving you both the effort, expense, and difficulty of the potential gunfight, why should you face possible felony prosecution for having done so? Under current AZ law, that is the case. Just ask the numerous people sitting in jail that have done so.
Of course, now that our supposedly pro-gun Governor has vetoed the measure, we'll just have to fight it out another day.

Who's taking bets that her potential successor on the Dem ticket will be any better?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? ...
Click to expand...
 
Wayne Conrad said:
I just don't know what to say to any of that. It's not true, and I'm not sure where you got it from.

The bill was introduced to keep people out of jail in the event that they had to draw but, as happens in most self defense uses of firearms, they did not have to fire.

I quote here a message from AzCDL's Dave Kopp, who was answering an inquiry on the AZRKBA mailing list. This is from the horse's mouth:
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on AZ law by any means. However in a SD encounter where you draw your gun and the perp runs away how do the police become involved??? The perp called the police?

If you are authorized to shoot, you have to produce your weapon to do it... The perp retreated of his own accord... Further to that you guys have Castle Doctrine.

It is one of those laws that doesn't accomplish much IMO.
 
I agree that this law doesn't accomplish much. What bothers me most is her reason for vetoing the bill in the first place.

In AZ you're allowed to threaten or use deadly physical force when you are threatened with deadly physical force and when preventing a long list of other dangerous felonies. What this bill said, was that I can draw my gun (as long as I don't aim in the direction of anyone) or I can let the BG know that I'm armed when physical force is threatened.

Well, doesn't do much for me because if the guy rushes me, I can't shoot him because deadly physical force is not authorized. IMO, while it can defuse a situation, it can also get you in to a ton of trouble.
 
mbt2001 said:
I am not an expert on AZ law by any means.
Click to expand...
Neither am I. I have, however, given you the opinion of the man who has introduced and is lobbying for the law on behalf of AzCDL, and a link to the video testimony of the lawyer whose training material is used by Arizona DPS for its CCW classes. I am interested in your opinion on why, exactly, these gentlemen have erred in their opinion that his law is needed in Arizona.
Dahwg said:
I agree that this law doesn't accomplish much.
Click to expand...
Again, please see Dave Kopp's comments, and Dave Anthony's video testimony before the senate Judiciary committee (linked to above). According to them, this law would have prevented many people who are currently in jail from being there.
 
a life time CCW sounds like a bad idea to me.
Click to expand...

We don't need any permit here in VT, nor in Alaska. A permit that lasts a lifetime isn't going to cause problems...better yet, I'd eliminate needing one altogether...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

armoredman
  • Locked
And in the midst of all this, AZ Governor
Replies
13
Views
779
Titan6
T
armoredman
  • Locked
Today, three historic votes in Arizona legislature.
2 3
Replies
69
Views
4K
poco loco
P
armoredman
  • Locked
AZ Governor vetoes pro gun bill
Replies
3
Views
508
Zonamo
Z
M
  • Locked
WI: governor vetoes CCW bill
Replies
14
Views
666
Standing Wolf
S
W
  • Locked
Arizona Governor Vetoes Dui,Gun-law Changes
Replies
3
Views
786
OMGWTFBBQ
O
Back
Top