Saying the Second Amendment doesn't stop at the door of government buildings, the House voted 38-20 Wednesday to let visitors bring their weapons in.
The measure, a version of which already has been approved by the Senate, would overrule existing laws that let public agencies keep guns out simply by posting signs at the doors and providing places for those coming in to check their weapons. SB 1201 would impose the additional requirements that cities, counties and state and other public agencies would have to have security guards along with metal detectors.
Lawmakers did agree to carve out an exception, though, for sports stadiums, ball fields and arenas as well as other public facilities used for events like trade shows and conventions. That came amid questions of whether these sites, most of which are owned or built by the public but operated by private sports teams, would have to allow fans to be armed or install metal detectors at each door.
And the legislation keeps in place, at least for now, the ability of state universities and community colleges to adopt rules to keep guns off their campuses. That, however, could soon change: A bill awaiting action by Gov. Jan Brewer would open the "public rights of way'' on and through campuses to guns.
But House members refused to accept another proposal to permit cities to keep their libraries, pools and community centers as weapons-free zones.
At the heart of the issue is whether people who go to government buildings are safer with or without their weapons.
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said the existing restrictions essentially are meaningless. He said signs on the door, absent more, do not keep out those who are armed.
Farnsworth said his belief is that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a restriction on the power of government. He said the way he reads it, state and local governments have no right to restrict the right of citizens to protect themselves.
He called this a "compromise,'' saying if the government wants to take away that self-defense ability, then it has a responsibility to ensure that no one else in the building is armed. And that, Farnsworth said, can be done only if there are guards and metal detectors.
Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, said that will create a major expense for cities. The result, he said, will be higher taxes or increased cost of admission to public events with a charge.
Farnsworth said the cost need not be huge, saying the metal detector requirement could be met by giving the security guard a hand-held wand.
Slabside posted at 6:14 pm on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
I am glad to see the "target rich environments" (available to criminals that couldn't care less is a firearm prohibited sign is posted) slowly disappearing.
Stay tuned for the hoplophobic posts of the leftists.[wink]
wdgnas posted at 4:37 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
so i can bring my weapon to a public place but have to check it in? why bother...
guntoter posted at 6:46 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
In the past you had to check your gun. The new law overrules that by saying that you can now carry in those places without checking it.
az2008 posted at 8:20 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
@wdgnas, the ability to check your weapon is very useful for those who ride bicycles or take mass transit. If an establishment can ban weapons, then they've effectively disarmed such visitors all the way from the point they left their property. I can understand an establishment claiming to control behavior on their property (and being liable for doing so). But, they shouldn't have the power to make people vulnerable off their property. Requiring a property owner who bans weapons to take possession is a good meeting of two competing rights.
OTOH, I'm not thrilled with growing trends to deregulate gun ownership. I think requiring training and licensing would be a good meeting of two competing rights (the right of the individual to defend themself, and the right of nearby individuals to be at less risk of ignorant knuckleheads.
I support the right to arms, but I believe it comes with responsibilities. I don't like that you can buy a gun and carry it anywhere just because it's an "absolute right." No right is absolute. IMO, the legislature and purist gun advocates are setting the stage for backlash and anti-gun sentiment. This seems to define the gun debate.
We go to one extreme with gun control (controllers who want to *ban* guns, seeing gun owners having no legitimate interest). And, gun freedom (zealots who believe even modest admissions of responsibility and social oversight is defeat.).
Slabside posted at 11:08 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
az2008, we are on the same page brother.
Really posted at 1:53 pm on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
So lets let everyone carry a gun everywhere...why am I feel this might be a bad idea. Being violent is not a good thing, now if people get into a fight they wont hit each other with their fist they will shoot each other because they can have a gun all over the place. Lets have guns in bars and sporting events where people do get drunk and over excited about events that are going on around them and then tend to become violent and crazy. This is a terrible move. So now you can bring a gun into a bank? You can bring a gun into a school? Post office? Talk about being the last civilized area in America, Wild West of Arizona. BTW if you think I am so sort of softy liberial, you're wrong. We need to arm the entire board to Mexico and blow everyone away that is crossing over with out permission. Guns are great, but not just in certain buildings.
Slabside posted at 4:18 pm on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
"So lets let everyone carry a gun everywhere"
I do.
"now if people get into a fight they wont hit each other with their fist they will shoot each other"
They have for many years... that's why I started carrying.
Really (the poster above) I understand your frustration but I don't advocate shooting everyone that crosses the border illegally. I'm in favor of closing it and controlling all access but the socialist Obama refuses to do it.
Get used to it... guns are here to stay. But one, familiarize yourself to it, practice with it and learn the gun laws. The police can't be everywhere and the Feds don't care.
az2008 posted at 10:42 pm on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
@really, we've had concealed carry for 15 years. Licensees haven't demonstrated a tendency to use their guns when they're angry.
If you wanted to say it's a bad idea to encourage people to carry guns without demonstrating proficiency in safe handling, marksmanship (being able to hit something 2' in diameter from 6' away) and legal issues surrounding use of lethal force, then I certainly agree with you. I think we should promote responsible gun ownership.
I don't think stereotyping all carriers as prone to uncontrolled rage helps the discussion. But, I agree with you that the current pro-gun mania (denying that unskilled, ignorant people pose a risk) isn't helpful either.
IMO, absolutists always dominate the debate over guns. Either the pro-control people whose idea of gun control is banning (or rendering guns useless for self defense). Or, the "sensible gun owner" who insists any sensible regulation is a violation of an absolute right.
I really think pro-gun advocates are undermining gun rights for everyone. The constitution isn't a suicide pact. We don't live to serve its need to our peril. It exists to promote *ordered* liberty, and make our lives better (than anarchy). When a few ignorant people misuse guns it's going to stigmatize gun ownership for the responsible people.
And then the extremists on the other side will step in, claiming they support "reasonable" gun control (which translates into "sporting purpose" and keeping your gun at a gun club).
Will_Travel posted at 9:56 am on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
@Really,
When Florida passed the first state-wide concealed carry law in 1987, opponents predicted that blood would run in the streets. They foresaw gunfights over parking spaces and traffic accidents. Anyone, in their eyes, carrying a gun would instantly become a mass-murderer if provoked or angered. It hasn’t happened but they are still waiting for it.
When the Arizona legislature presented Governor Brewer with Senate Bill 1108 eliminating the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit to carry a concealed firearm, opponents feared wild, crazy and untrained pistol packers would start shooting up everything in sight. It hasn’t happened but they are still waiting for it.
When the Arizona legislature presented Governor Brewer with Senate Bill 1363 allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in restaurants and bars by permitted holders that did not consume alcohol, opponents envisioned the horror of gun carrying drunks killing fellow patrons over spilled beer. It hasn’t happened but they are still waiting for it.
When the Arizona legislature presented Governor Brewer with House Bill 2474 allowing the storage of weapons on private property, opponents imagined the dreadful acts of terminated workers or workplace rivals retrieving guns from the trunks of their cars and slaughtering their (ex) co-workers. It hasn’t happened but they are still waiting for it.
Now, Senate Bill 1467 would allow guns to be carried or stored on university and community college campuses (not in classrooms) and Senate Bill 1201 would permit the possession of firearms in public buildings and require storage facilities to hold those firearms if their possession is restricted within the building. While opponents fear the worst, it hasn’t happened before and it probably won’t happen now.
To clarify some of your points:
You can bring a gun into a bank provided a sign prohibiting such isn’t posted. The same holds true for any public or private building or business. Parking lots are now exempt.
You can not bring a gun into a school. The new law doesn’t allow that either.
You con not bring a gun into a Post office. It’s a federal building and continues to be off limits; even the parking lot.
Really posted at 9:57 am on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
@ AZ2008,
I agree with you that the people should be trained and skilled if they are going to carry their guns, and with the concealed weapons permit you have to take the course and pay for it to do so. Now this may not seem like much of a deterent, but it is. Those people that are the stereotypical people that do get out of control and use violence are most of the time from the lower income areas. That cost for that class and permit may not seem like a lot for a "normal" person, but it is for those that are of lower socio-economic status. Now you may say that I am stereotyping, this maybe, but I have also been in schools that have a higher socio-economic class and those that have a lower socio-economic class. The lower did have more violent students & parents. The lower socio-economic class people would also do things without carrying what happened to them afterwards. These things all added up equal bad news if you are now allowing them to carry guns all over the place.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 10:33 am on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
The truth is that criminals can get guns when they want them regardless of laws, and will carry them when they want to. The only thing you accomplish by outlawing guns in any way is to disarm the responsible citizens. Training is important but not necessary. Now that anyone can carry either open or concealed, with or without permit, we are a safer state to live in. I would advise all citizens who are gun legal to own and carry everyday, weather you have training or not. If you think you can't control yourself, by all means do not carry any weapons at all. lol
retired03 posted at 7:08 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
I assume you are trying to make a joke "nothing" but in case you aren't, I believe training is absolutely essential. Being able to hit your intended target is as important as knowing when to shoot or don't shoot. If you can do neither then you are a menace to society. Police officers spend countless hours training in accuracy and shoot don't shoot scenarios. Granted, the professionals have a different set of rules such as they are required to pursue gunmen where a citizen is only armed to protect. But, I want the guy in line beside me at the popcorn stand at the theater to be able to hit what he aims at and not shoot me and my family while we are down range from him