The issue of gun control has once again come to the surface, in light of several bills passed by the state Legislature before the session ended.
SB 1467, which would have permitted guns to be carried on the public right-of-ways of school campuses, and SB 1201, the "firearms omnibus" that would allow guns in public buildings, cleared both houses this session.
The governor vetoed SB 1467 because it was "poorly written," but has not given any indication on whether she will sign or veto SB 1201.
These pieces of legislation prompted fierce debate over where guns should and should not be allowed as well as the type of regulations that can be imposed on them.
"There is a right both under the Arizona constitution and the U.S. Constitution to bear arms. Nobody knows exactly what that means," said Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor and former dean of Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. "Nobody knows exactly what the arms are that you have a right to bear and nobody knows exactly what kind of regulation is possible."
Gun laws vary across the country. Chicago and Washington, D.C. had bans on handgun ownership before the Supreme Court ruled both unconstitutional. California makes all people who purchase firearms go through a background check. These strict laws are not the case in Arizona though.
According to a 2009 report card put together by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Arizona has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country.
The state received two points out of 100, signifying Arizona's lack of regulations.
No points were gained in the curb-firearm-trafficking, background check, child-safety and ban-military-assault-weapons categories.
The two points Arizona did receive were for not allowing guns on college campuses.
This causes concern among advocates for tighter gun control, like state Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.
"You start looking at some of the legislation and it's not about the Second Amendment; it's about public safety. It's about making sure guns are not in the hands of the bad guys. If you talk to folks who are gun owners, they'll agree with you," he said.
Gallardo talked about the need to close the gun show loophole in Arizona and advocated a ban on high-capacity magazines like the one prosecutors say Jared Loughner used in the Tucson shooting earlier this year.
A prohibition on high-capacity magazines has existed before. A part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, made it illegal to sell high-capacity magazines that were manufactured after the ban was in place. An exception was made for law enforcement officials.
"Some of the measures that we are pushing and some of the measures we support, it has nothing to do with prohibiting a law-abiding citizen from owning a firearm. It's taking the guns away from the criminals," Gallardo said.
The measures that he and other gun control advocates are pushing are not necessarily unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged the need for regulations and weapons that have more firepower fall under this category.
"The U.S. Supreme Court ... says you can have reasonable gun regulations. The guns or the arms that are protected by bearing arms is not everything you could use to kill something. It is limited in some ways to arms that are traditionally used for self-protection," Bender said.
Bazooka, machine guns and assault weapons don't likely fall under this category, he said.
But those who argue for looser gun laws don't see things this way. They argue that if more people are allowed to carry guns, there will be less crime because victims will have a means of self-defense.
"People try to make this a choice - you can either have the Second Amendment or you can have safety. I don't believe that at all. I believe we have the Second Amendment because it guarantees safety," said Daniel Crocker, the southwest director of Students for Concealed Carry.
Crocker and his organization specifically advocates for the ability to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus.
Of the campuses across the nation that allow firearms to be carried on school grounds, there have not been any problems, he said.
"We believe there is nothing so special about college campuses that you should be denied self-defense," Crocker said.
PineBuffalo posted at 1:29 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
First, a low score from the Brady Campaign is an indication Arizona's laws respect individual rights rather than reflecting the knee jerk reactions of emotion drive left wing whack jobs. You are to be congratulated for that.
Second, I'm sorry to see that Phoenix is represented by one of those naive souls who believes it would actually be possible to prevent criminals from getting guns. This is no more possible than banning cocaine.
Third, there is no gun show loophole. There is established law that says private parties making private sales are not obliged to conduct background checks. Licensed gun dealers are so obliged. These statements are true at gun shows as well as in other venues.
Fourth, high cap magazines have little effect on how many rounds a shooter can put out. A person with three ten round mags can put thirty rounds downrange in little more time than a person with a singe thirty round mag. Those who urge a ban on high cap mags are either pathetically ignorant or, more likely, simply trying to enact one limitation so they can move to another until they have disarmed the rest of us. In either case, the goal is misguided.
Finally, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, meaning it has the same force as the other items recognizing our right to free speech, to freedom of religion and to freedom from warrant-less searches and seizures. I will note that our benevolent government holds the latter right in contempt in the case of TSA screenings. But that's a topic for another day.
az2008 posted at 1:53 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
I think the authors of recent gun legislation made a mistake by not tying the expanded carry privilege to CCW licensing. Which ties into something else I feel was a mistake: eliminating CCW licensing as a requirement for CCW (1-2 years ago?).
Rights are about balancing competing interests. No right is absolute. For example, the freedom of speech is subject to time/manner/place restrictions. Your freedom to assemble and protest doesn't mean you can walk down a public road at rush hour, nor drive around with a loudspeaker blaring your message into everyone's home.
I see the gun debate tilting too far toward absolutism. It feeds into the anti-gunners who pursue their own absolutist agenda (banning guns rather than promoting responsible ownership).
If it were me, I'd require licensing to own guns. Just 8 hours of basic safe handling, legal issues concerning the use of lethal force. A higher level of licensing (more education) for public carrying (open or concealed). And, yet another level which preempts "no guns allowed" signs.
Such licensing should be non-discretionary. It shouldn't be subject to anti-gun politicians who would evade the spirit of the law by not having application forms available (as was the case in Chicago for decades, a backdoor way to ban handguns).
But, I don't believe education and background checks are a significant infringement on the right to self-defense. I've been around enough novice gun owners to know I wouldn't feel comfortable with them carrying in public. They don't know how to safely handle a gun. They don't know when it's acceptable to use lethal force (or threaten its use). That's not a good situation.
I think requiring education, licensing and expanding privileges with higher level of compliance would take gun advocacy out of the realm of antagonism, validating it as a constructive, institutionalized and respected right.
I don't blame gun owners for being antagonistic. It was shameful how the Supreme Court didn't rule on the gun right for 70 years. But, now that it's been affirmed as an individual right, I think gun owners can relax and take a more mature view of what's "reasonable." I don't think they have to be so reflexively defensive, as if giving an inch will result in losing a mile. (Admittedly that was the case for decades until recently.).
I think if they continue to take an intractable, absolutist (libertarian) position, they're just going to create scenarios that will give anti-gunners a soap-box to claim gun ownership serves no purpose today. That it does more harm than good, and should be repealed.
johnolie posted at 4:38 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
I will be happy to attend classes and get a government issued permit so that I can enjoy my 2nd amendment rights just as soon as they offer 1st amendment classes and government permits so az2008 can write what he/she wants. While we are at it, I guess we should also offer classes and issue permits for people who want to go to church and what about 4th amendment classes and permits so the police can't break down your door.
The Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution to keep the federal government out of our personal lives as much as possible. The government does not have the power to require a permit to exercise any of these rights since the government does not grant these rights. These rights come from God.
PineBuffalo posted at 5:37 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
johnolie has it right.
When the bill of rights was written, the founding fathers had just successfully prosecuted a violent, armed rebellion against a tyrannical colonial government. The second amendment is in the bill of rights in order to assure that Americans would retain the means to do away with tyranny in the future. The founders were no fools. Our current batch of pols, on the other hand, have the collective intelligence of a bucket of bait.
Obtaining a license in order to exercise a fundamental human right would be ridiculous.
guyshomenet posted at 5:44 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
The Brady Campaign scores Arizona low for gun control, yet according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics - UCR Data Online, Arizona has a violent crime rate lower than the U.S. average and a rate less than a third of Washington D.C., which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation (and which the Brady Campaign declines to score).
Such canards is why Sarah Brady and her organization get a staring role in "Shooting The Bull", a book coming out May 1st and which exposed the long and sad history of the gun control industry. Seems Sarah and company can't cast a single statement that isn't loaded with misinformation, such as their odd scoring system.
Slabside posted at 6:07 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
To the above poster, all well said!!![thumbup]
NothingButTheTruth posted at 7:31 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
If the 2nd was meant so that we would be able to do away with a tyrannical government, and I do know this to be a fact, why are we limited to pea shooters? We should have the right to own tanks and stealth bombers as well as all other forms of military arms. How are we to do away with a tyrannical government with what little they allow us to own? I'm no gun grabber and demand my right to own and carry arms, but you really have to agree that the 2nd as well as other parts of our constitution were written in a much simpler time, and many voice a valid argument when they say so. During our earliest days as a nation, with what the common man had in his possession was sufficient in numbers to take our federal or state governments back by force, but this ability no longer exists.
PineBuffalo posted at 9:58 pm on Mon, Apr 25, 2011.
NothingButTheTruth -
Look at this website: oathkeepers.org
If, God forbid, the sewage were to hit the fan, don't assume that any lame brained pol could order the military to take actions that would violate the oath they take to support the constitution. The same would be true of many sworn law enforcement officers.
The other factor is: you use a pistol to acquire a rifle and a rifle to acquire a machine gun. The progression ends somewhere short of jet aircraft, but bear in mind that jet aircraft can be disabled on the ground by fairly primitive means.
mvccd1000 posted at 12:34 am on Tue, Apr 26, 2011.
Andrew Hedlund fails as a fact-checker. In the opinion piece, he states: "A prohibition on high-capacity magazines has existed before. A part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, made it illegal to own or use a high-capacity magazines. This ban expired in 2004."
Reality: It was never illegal to own or use such magazines, or even to sell them. It was only illegal to import or manufacture new ones for other than Law Enforcement use.
k33j88 posted at 5:12 am on Tue, Apr 26, 2011.
Hope and pray to GOD that I never have to use my weapon for self defense for my family or I. However, 1 shot, maybe 2, is all this life-time member of the NRA will need.
fbak77 posted at 3:52 pm on Tue, Apr 26, 2011.
Paul Bender is wrong! The framers of our constitution specically generalized the right to keep and bear arms! This means any citizen should have the right to own and carry any type of firearm that they choose. This right shall not be subject to bans or other regulation by government!
Dougded posted at 7:37 am on Wed, Apr 27, 2011.
Andrew; I don't care what Brady thinks, they are in the business of denying freedom. Crime doesn't come from responsible citizens and there is nothing wrong with being able to defend yourself and your family. THe average response time for police is 23 minutes. THe average crime takes less than three minutes. Do the math!
Thermopylae posted at 5:25 am on Thu, Apr 28, 2011.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed may may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson. -
Gun free zones are in fact Free Fire Zones, places where no one is allowed the ability to defend themselves against violent crime.