AZ governor sold us down the road.

[Thernlund]

Veto letter links...

Defensive Display
http://www.governor.state.az.us/dms/upload/NR_052708_HB2629 veto letter.pdf

CCW Lifetime Permit
http://www.governor.state.az.us/dms/upload/NR_052708_SB1106 veto letter.pdf


-T.

EDIT: After having read these, they seem like reasonable vetoes. More laws aren't the answer.

 

[gunshow]

I've watched this piece of crap for years and concluded LOOOONG ago that she fits the letter and the spirit of what the prophet Isaiah was talking about in Isaiah 3:12.

 

[mbt2001]

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.

I told you why I thought the law wasn't needed and I qualified my statments advising I am not an expert.

IMO, the law is redundant. Anyone who is in jail for displaying a firearms is DANGED lucky that they didn't actually shoot the perp huh??? Who called the police on them? The perp? I mean, most of the times a cop can't just arrest you, you have to prefer charges or file a complaint.

Anyway, if someone is trying to mug you with a knife, you are in fear of your life, you draw a gun and bear down on the trigger, but before you fire, he runs away... In that case you are certainly within your rights.

 

[WayneConrad]

I told you why I thought the law wasn't needed and I qualified my statments advising I am not an expert.

IMO, the law is redundant. Anyone who is in jail for displaying a firearms is DANGED lucky that they didn't actually shoot the perp huh??? Who called the police on them? The perp? I mean, most of the times a cop can't just arrest you, you have to prefer charges or file a complaint.

Anyway, if someone is trying to mug you with a knife, you are in fear of your life, you draw a gun and bear down on the trigger, but before you fire, he runs away... In that case you are certainly within your rights.rights.

Yes, the perp. does call the cops on the victim.

The law is hardly redundanteople were jailed who would not have been with this law. Here's one, from Mr. Anthony's testimony before the Senate judiciary committee: The son of an Arizona sheriff went to jail for a self defense use of a firearm wherein all he did was stand with his rifle at port arms in order to keep his aggressors at bay. He was charged with aggravated assault and jailed. He was not the aggressor, and he was exonerated. This bill is designed to protect the peaceable citizen who is using a firearm to prevent violence, so they do not have to endure that unnecessary legal process just for defending themselves from aggression. Nothing more. Governor Napolitano's letters is a mis-characterization of the bill. It's crying "blood in the streets" all over again.

Should it be aggravated assault to stand with a rifle at port arms? Or for your grandmother to tell the bad guy, "go away, I have a gun?" These actions do not serve to escalate the encounter. Statistics show the opposite. Also, the bill put strict limits on how the gun could be displayed, clearly to keep things from being escalated. This was not a "pull out a gun and wave it at people just because you were mad" bill.

 

[WayneConrad]

EDIT: After having read these, they seem like reasonable vetoes. More laws aren't the answer.

I am astounded that two simple letters from a notably anti-gun governor are sufficient to sway the mind of one of our own. Did you read or listen to any of the material from our side, by any chance?

 

[Thernlund]

I am astounded that two simple letters from a notably anti-gun governor are sufficient to sway the mind of one of our own. Did you read or listen to any of the material from our side, by any chance?

Oh I did. My position is that new laws aren't the answer.

If there is no threat, displaying a gun isn't prudent. If there is a threat, the SD laws are on your side for displaying a gun.

This law would do absolutely nothing. The last thing we need is more meaningless words on the books. Reference the tax code to better understand my point.

As for lifetime CCW, while that may not be meaningless, it is a stop gap and would make it harder down the road for Vermont-style carry to be instituted. As well, the governor makes a point that if we did this, we could lose alot of reciprocity. Even though I may dislike Ms. Napolitano, she has a point there.

Don't think my mind is "swayed", Wayne. I think for myself. And these laws are either unneeded or unwise.


-T.

 

[mbt2001]

Should it be aggravated assault to stand with a rifle at port arms? Or for your grandmother to tell the bad guy, "go away, I have a gun?" These actions do not serve to escalate the encounter. Statistics show the opposite. Also, the bill put strict limits on how the gun could be displayed, clearly to keep things from being escalated. This was not a "pull out a gun and wave it at people just because you were mad" bill.

folks shouldn't be arrested for that. We are rapidly entering a stage in this country where UNLESS ENUMERATED IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, when it used to be UNLESS PROHIBITED, IT IS LEGAL.
The sheriff, the DA, the Mayor, those are the people to see about this. I find it amazing that the Sheriff's kid was standing at port arms with a rifle... I understand the need for a "law" mindset, but show me where standing at port arms, ON YOUR PROPERTY is brandishing???

IN this country, people are being arrested BEFORE they break the law and having to PROVE they didn't break the law... Passing more laws doesn't help this, just further aggravates the problem.

 

[WayneConrad]

mbt2001, This is not the problem you think it is: This is not an "unless numerated it is against the law" problem. We don't need to invoke Ayn Rand, or form circles of libertarians and chant. Under current law, it seems to the police that the victim should be arrested, and that is the problem that needs to be fixed. The police read the law, the law seems to say that the victim needs to be arrested so that the DA can sort it out, and the police do their duty. The correct way to fix the problem is to amend the law so that the police are not compelled to arrest the good guy just for using a firearm to defuse aggression.

In this case, a change to the law is what is needed.

And since when does government respond to us wishing it would adhere to libertarian principles, anyhow? You get a multi-purpose tool that can strike law, modify law, or introduce law (or some combination of the three).

 

[wristtwister]

Although I have a CWP, I feel that it's a permit from the "Bill of conditional priveleges" rather than the constitutional Bill of Rights. I already have a lifetime carry permit, it's called the 2nd Amendment. My father died at the Battle of the Bulge so I could keep it. I served as a law enforcement officer to help protect people with it, and my daughter is now in the military protecting it today.

Tell the governor that rights exist in spite of constitutional government that was organized to collect taxes... which is what the Constitution is... a document to create structural guidelines for commerce and tax collection. If our forefathers had seen what taxation with representation has done to us, they would have never dumped the tea in Boston harbor.

WT