A key Tucson legislative Democrat wants to make it a crime for Arizonans to buy a high-capacity ammunition magazine.
"I don't think anybody needs a weapon of war on the streets of Arizona,'' said Linda Lopez, the assistant Senate minority leader. Her measure, set to be unveiled Thursday would also outlaw both the possession and transfer of any such clip, defined as capable of holding 10 or more rounds.
But Lopez said anyone who already has such a magazine would not be subject to criminal penalties.
The issue of high-capacity magazines jumped into the gun debate again last month with the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Adam Lanza had a rifle with a 30-round capacity when he killed 20 children and six adults.
Lopez said James Holmes, accused of last year's killings at an Aurora, Colo. movie theater also had a high-capacity magazine. And, closer to home, Jared Loughner outfitted his pistol with a high-capacity clip before killing six in Tucson in 2011 and seriously wounding Gabrielle Giffords.
The proposal will run into stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association. Board member Todd Rathner said he does not see how such a ban would save lives, as nothing in the law would preclude someone from carrying multiple clips.
"If you just practice in your bedroom you could learn to switch magazines quickly,'' he said. Anyway, he said, there is no reason to limit the ability of people to arm themselves.
"The individual citizen needs to be able to own the tools that the average military person would carry in combat,'' Rathner said. "That's what the Second Amendment is all about.''
Rathner sidestepped the question of whether the NRA believes individuals should be able to have fully automatic weapons.
"Where I would draw the line and where someone else might draw the line would be different,'' he said. Anyway, he said, the military does not make fully automatic weapons part of the standard issue for soldiers because they are so difficult to control. Instead, Rathner said, weapons are set to create a three-round "burst'' of bullets.
But he said the civilian version of a semiautomatic firearm "is exactly the type of weapon the Second Amendment was meant to protect.''
"And they've got to be able to have the load capacity as the average military person,'' he continued. "Why? Because the Second Amendment is about repelling a tyrannical government, not about hunting.''
Lopez said the details of her plan are still being worked out with groups like Arizonans for Gun Safety. And she conceded there are questions she could not answer at this point.
For example, she acknowledged Arizonans could go to another state that has no such restriction and buy one. That would make the only method of enforcing her ban to actually check people driving into the state.
"We have to start somewhere,'' she said. "I can't control what they do in New Mexico.''
Lopez is not alone among Democrats in proposing new regulations.
On Wednesday, House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, proposed that any weapon sold at a gun show be subject to background checks.
Campbell's proposal also includes:
- More money for schools to hire "resource officers'' -- armed police officers -- for security;
- Increased funding to treat the mentally ill;
- Allowing local governments to melt down weapons obtained through court order rather than having to sell them to dealers.
And Campbell wants to repeal a 2010 law which allows any adult to carry a concealed weapon. That would return Arizona to the days when that right was reserved only for those with a state-issued permit and who had been through certain training and a background check.
The issue of gun show sales has been on the national radar amid charges that those who cannot pass the legally required background check instead choose to get their guns from these commercial shows.
Federal law exempts person-to-person sales from the required background check. And that has been interpreted to include sales made by gun owners of their own weapons at gun shows.
Campbell's proposal, if approved, would require some change in logistics.
Under federal law, only licensed firearm dealers can conduct such checks. Campbell's plan would mean promoters would have to ensure there is at least one licensed dealer at every event.
Recognizing that dealers would not do that for free, Campbell said the legislation would allow that person to charge up to $50 per check. That would be on top of what he said is the $18 cost of the federal check.
Campbell defended the additional cost.
"We pay fees on all kinds of things if we want to have them,'' he said. And Campbell, who said he is a gun owner, said owning a weapon is both a right and a responsibility.
"But if I want to buy a weapon that costs me $1,000 or more, I'm willing to pay a 50-buck fee to get that weapon,'' he said.
Rathner said such checks are unnecessary.
He said Loughner who had passed a background check. Ditto for Holmes.
And Rathner said more than 90 percent of the weapons sold at gun shows already are subject to background checks because the sellers are licensed dealers.
But beyond that, he said there are practical problems.
He said a firearms dealer is required to enter a gun into his or her own inventory before doing a background check.
If the buyer does not clear, the weapon should go back to the seller. But Rathner said the dealer, having "title'' to the gun, would then be required to do a background check on the seller.
"What if the seller does not pass the background check?'' he asked. "Whose gun is it.''
Rathner said that's one reason that Tucson, which tried to mandate such checks on gun-show sales on city-owned property, abandoned the plan.
Campbell's plan also would require the same kind of background check for the sale of assault-style weapons, even if not at a gun show. So one neighbor selling a gun that fits that definition to another would have to run the purchase through a dealer who could charge a fee.
He acknowledged that what is considered an assault-style weapon, at least according to since-repealed federal laws, has more to do with a gun's appearance than its power. But he said there are certain markers that make some weapons more dangerous than others, including a high-capacity ammunition magazine.
Campbell acknowledged his plan for more school safety officers, increasing the number of counselors and providing grants for school safety measure carries a $100 million pricetag.
He said half that cost could be made up by eliminating a state law which gives individuals a dollar-for-dollar state income tax credit for money to help students attend private and parochial schools. Campbell said many of the students taking advantage of those scholarships would be attending these schools anyway.
The chances of the GOP-controlled Legislature approving that is virtually nil, especially since lawmakers voted last year to actually expand the scholarships.
-30-
DannieD69 posted at 1:10 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Politicians need to stop trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights. Nothing is gained by making it illegal to pocess the guns or the clips. It didn't stop what happened in CT...he obtained those weapons by STEALING them. Law biding, clear minded, rational people do not commit crimes like that. The only thing that is accomplished with outlawing guns, clips, ammunition, etc is taking away law biding citizens ability to protect themselves. Criminals do not care about what is outlawed..we need to remind politicians who they work for and leave the freaking constitution alone.
DataMan posted at 1:20 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Actually Dannie, the Conn shooter was given access to the guns by his mother. Even though she knew he had mental issues. He'd even take them by himself to a gun range. Look at the STINK some raised when an empty clip was shown on MTP!
Please take off your blinders.
Can you own ANY gun you want? Nope. They are REGULATED, as is stated in the 2nd amendment!
az2008 posted at 1:40 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Dannie, any right is balanced by competing interests. (Freedom of speech is subject to time/manner/place restrictions which aren't seen as seriously impeding anyone's right to express themselves.). Nobody uses a 60-round drum magazine to defend themselves against criminals. Such an accessory would support a collective uprising against tyrannical government (the intent of the 2nd Amendment), but 95% of gun owners by guns for personal defense against private crime (which is effective without high capacity).
There's no need to fear that the right to arms is in jeopardy by diminishing the collective (militia) purpose of the 2nd. The 14th Amendment's incorporation of the 2nd amendment was expressly for the purpose of protecting a right against private crime (not states' ability to raise militias against federal abuse).
Google for the Seton Hall Law Journal article: "Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and 'The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms': Visions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment" It's very good and demonstrates how the right to arms can meet our modern needs and doesn't depend on an unrealistic "Red Dawn" interpretation.
az2008 posted at 2:03 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Data, I agree with your sentiment. However, I'd like to point out that the word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment doesn't refer to legislation. It meant "accurate." For example, clocks were referred to as "regulated." Event today, adjusting a pendulum clock is referred to as "regulating."
Noah Webster's 1828 US Dictionary (the first dictionary of US English, as differentiated from British) defined "Regulated" foremost as, "adjusted by rule, method or form; put in good order;"
This had more to do with the nature of the militia, not firearms. The founders intended to distribute arms ownership throughout the population so states could repopulate their militia if the new federal government called a state's militia into federal service (perhaps against the state itself). The primary concern at that time was the federal government's authority to take control of state militias, and to raise standing armies. That militias might be federalized and placed into the standing army, leaving states with no alternative.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 2:04 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
(continued...)
Why did they qualify the militia as "well-regulated?" Remember that the single event which shifted public support for the 1789 proposed government (to replace the libertarian Articles of Confederation) was Shay's Rebellion. A group of men using founding rhetoric from a decade earlier to justify private insurrection. The founders felt the best want to ensure state ability to raise militia (against federal usurpation of the militia) was universally armed population for the state to draw upon. However, they saw the militia as an official, organized body -- not private groups deciding for themselves that government had gone too far.
A good corollary is the jury. We're all vested with the right of conscience and to decide what is just. However, our decisions carry no significance unless carried out within the state-created framework of the jury, after careful deliberation with our peers. In the language of the founding generation, the jury would be said to be "well-regulated." A form and method created by the state which gives our private conscience official meaning. Trying to give official meaning (veto power over a law) to your private opinion would be pointless. (Trying to do it with a gun would be insurrection, which is what the public wished to guard against after Shay.).
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 2:04 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
(continued...)
I've heard gun activists say universal ownership constitutes a universal militia, which itself most accurately reflects consent to be governed. That sounds reasonable. But, it was this more libertarian viewpoint which *lost* in 1789. It was anti-federalists such as Jefferson who argued in favor of occasional (at least every 20 years) occurrences of Shay. They wanted to remain with the Articles of Confederation. They lost. People like Franklin, often quoted by modern libertarians for his "trade liberty for safety deserve neither" was a *Federalist*. He was in favor of trading the liberties which Anti-federalists sought to preserve.
It's an interesting topic. Cheers.
az2008 posted at 3:28 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Activists for the right to arms should realize that the Supreme Court has ruled 1) that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (2005) and 2) that the right to arms is incorporated by the 14th Amendment (2010). Today isn't like the '80s and '90s when any loss of right was irreversible due to the Supreme Court ignoring the 2nd Amendment. Those two decisions set the stage for the purpose of the right, balancing competing interests, how far states can go without running afoul of the federal supremacy (preemption) clause.
Personally, I think the right of revolt argument related to the 2nd amendment is a non-starter. The militia is mostly disused, and few firearm owners purchase firearms for this purpose. I completely agree that it's disturbing how a right can be nullified by disusing the the civic good it was intended to promote. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is a right whose purpose has fallen into disuse. This creates a PR problem which could *easily* lead to a repeal effort.
I strongly encourage gun owners to immerse themselves in the topic of 14th Amendment incorporation. This is where there is solid footing for the right, and something which everyone can relate to. It applies to the 95% who own a firearm for self defense (not Red Dawn fantasies). It's also what will block state laws.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 3:28 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
(continued...)
Google for the Seton Hall Law Journal article, "Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and 'The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms': Visions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment." Keep in mind that this was written before the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd is incorporated by the 14th.
Also google for "14th Amendment incorporation" to learn more about the concept. In a nutshell: The Bill of Rights was a bar against Congressional infringement. After the 13th Amendment freeing slaves, southern states began to pass laws depriving blacks of their rights. The feds passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, but the courts ruled the Feds had no jurisdiction to enforce these rights against state or private infringement. The feds had no direct relationship with citizens of any state. Thus was born the 14th Amendment to make individuals citizens of both the state they reside, and the federal government. And, to extend to citizens "privileges and immunities" against state infringement. During the debates on the 14th Amendment, "privileges and immunities" were understood to be the first 8 bill of rights. (The 2nd Amendment was exclusively discussed as a right against private violence, not related in any way to militia purposes.).
az2008 posted at 3:29 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
(continued...)
The Supreme Court, unwilling to embrace this large shift toward federalism continued to deny the feds any authority to enforce the bill of rights. Reconstruction ended in the 1870s, and Jim Crow laws flourished. It wasn't until the 1920s that the Supreme Court discovered the original intent of the 14th Amendment when the Court heard a case concerning Wisconsin(?) banning a communist newspaper. The court created the doctrine of "selective incorporation" and, over the following 50 years, incorporated rights in a case-by-case manner.
By the mid '70s all but the 2nd and 3rd amendments were incorporated by the 14th. The court even found a right of privacy during that time. As mentioned above, it wasn't until 2010 that the court included the 2nd amendment.
Regarding the original intent of the 2nd, I enthusiasts should work toward reconstituting the militia, or some form of organized martial power held by the citizenry. (Armed "block watch" duty?). I agree with enthusiasts that the purpose of the 2nd is valuable. But, we're so far from it having any practical purpose that we need to start with the basics. Asserting what it means has little effect when its goal has been lost.
mlimberg posted at 4:35 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Let's make it a crime to buy gas because too many people die in drunk driving accidents......
Do you get it?
Idiot Liberal Messed up ideas... It's not the metal, it's the holder of the metal...
let's melt down knives, baseball bats, beer bottles....
samkat posted at 6:39 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
az: Nobody says you have to buy a gun or high capacity magazine. For those of us who prefer to spend our money in difference ways, lets keep that separation. I was serving in the military probably long before you and maybe even your father were born. I paid my dues and if I want an assault weapon (by liberal definitions - semiautomatic by ours), I will do so. To counter one comment I read, individuals who want a fully automatic weapon have to have BATF approval, pay a lot of money for the license and then a lot of money for the weapon. Very few of us have a desire to go through the process, notwithstanding the financial resources to pay for the ammunition they burn through.
What is next on the liberal agenda? Do we ban all sharp objects because somebody could use them as a weapon? Do we ban automobiles next since they can be used as weapons of mass destruction? You say not? People have crashed into crowds with automobiles and killed a lot of people in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Arson, homemade bombs or any other destructive devices can be be assembled from plans obtained on the Internet. If an individual has a desire to do bodily harm, they will find a way.
az2008 posted at 7:36 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Mlimberg: the same could be said about hand grenades and shoulder-launched missles. "It's the person, not the metal." We're always going to draw lines about what has an acceptable use, and what doesn't. Increasingly, in the absence of a militia, there's little use for 60-round drum-fed magazines.
Sam: Please note that I only addressed magazines, not so-called assault weapons. I agree that there is no functional difference between a semi-auto rifle and military-styled assault weapon. The only difference is style, cosmetics.
I don't understand your point about full autos. The fact that they're a pain to acquire, highly regulated, registered, their numbers limited, and their values consequently skyrocketed to the point of unaffordability seems to support that controls are possible. We don't hear gun right activists calling for full autos to be treated like any other firearm. It's just accepted that you don't need one for self defense against private crime.
The same could easily be said of high capacity magazines.
az2008 posted at 9:38 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
I wonder why nobody at the legislature is talking about our growing culture of Pop Violence. First-person role play and movies which are so graphic it would be real.
Some will say violent entertainment (sounds like an oxymoron to me) has no influence on the average person. I find that hard to believe when corporations are willing to pay millions for a 30-second advertising spot. Why would they do that if they felt they couldn't make an impression and shape viewers' tastes, behaviors, etc?
wdgnas posted at 7:03 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
what a load. the individual citizen wants what the average military person would carry in combat for one reason and one reason only. IT IS COOL. years ago when i used to hunt deer or elk, a person who showed up or was seen with an auto loader was scorned, laughed at. why would you want to swiss cheese an elk or deer.
samcat: i think you are referring to a tax stamp when speaking about possessing an automatic. an FFL (federal firearms license) class 3 was required to sell automatic weapons.
az2008 posted at 11:58 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
wd, the "tax stamp" is really "registration." Enthusiasts recoil at the thought of registration, but when anyone mentions full autos are illegal, enthusiasts will boast how "all you have to do is..." (as if registration isn't so bad). :)
It's also a bit more cumbersome than possessing a tax stamp. The number of full autos in circulation was frozen in 1986. You have to find a willing seller of an existing full auto, leading to higher prices as they are increasingly seen as "collectible" investments.
It's interesting to note that, in 1938 (when machine guns were regulated) Congress felt it had no authority to register or ban ownership. It felt it could only exercise its power to tax as a means of generating registration records, and that the targeted group (gangsters like Al Capone) would be affected.
We've come a long way toward embracing federal supremacy since then. Some of it good (such as 14th Amendment incorporation of the bill of rights against state infringement).
wdgnas posted at 7:13 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
az2008: i sold my full autos in 1994. if i wanted to, i could buy one at anytime from a gun dealer in nebraska. and it is referred to as a tax stamp. a stamp on the approved form.