Posted on 10/03/2009 6:33:38 AM PDT by marktwain
In what some might consider an ironic twist, on Wednesday a law making guns accessible and more portable in public went into effect the same day that restrictions on women's rights to choose to terminate an unintended pregnancy went into effect in Arizona.
Arizona StatePress.com reports that both laws are "stirring controversy among Arizona residents, businesses, organizations and politicians."
The new laws allow guns to be kept in cars on campus, as well as on public and private properties. New abortion laws, which have been challenged in court, impose a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions.
Another new gun law allows licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons into bars and restaurants unless there is a sign on the property prohibiting firearms, according to state legislative documents.
A student leader at Arizona State University (ASU), sophomore Christopher Chesny, secretary of the ASU College Republicans, said the new gun laws "are well thought out and protect Second Amendment rights." In other words, more guns will be available to more people in more places. But ASU President Michael Crow said in an Arizona Board of Regents meeting Friday that allowing concealed weapons in locked vehicles on campus goes against the environment he wants for the University.
“Our job as university presidents is to create an environment for openness, tolerance, communication, understanding — all these things,” Crow said. “The public projection of weapons is a counter to the creation of that environment.”
There are some 30,000 deaths from handguns in the United States each year, and firearms are responsible for more deaths among children and young adults ages 10 to 19 than any other cause except car accidents.
(Excerpt) Read more at rhrealitycheck.org ...
I didn't catch the part where the Leftwingtard policy is to restrict baby killing AND restrict guns ~ they don't do that do they?
People die more from yakking or texting on cell phones while driving than from guns.
As opposed to allowing some nutjob who doesn't care about "gun free zones" to just walk in and shoot a bunch of people before someone can stop him....
How can a man that stupid become president of a major university? Answer, he isn't that stupid he's just a flaming liberal who hates guns and the people who own, carry, and use them.
Anyone with the IQ of a turnip, even a far-leftist liberal educator, knows deep down that an armed man or woman is far safer from criminal assault than an unarmed helpless victim. But the liberal mindset and a hatred for guns and gun owners is so deeply ingrained into those people's little grey cells that no amount of common sense can seep into their closed minds.
1. "Children" and young adults [ages 15-25 in other words] die so rarely that it doesn't take much to make the top two list.
2. How many of those deaths are death-deaths (as Whoopi would put it)? Most are thug-on-thug deaths, where they are already prohibited from carrying firearms because of their earlier felony convictions. How many of the rest are good deaths, where a law-abiding citizen defends himself against a thug, and instead of sending the thug through the failed criminal justice system for another year or two behind bars, we send the thug to the morgue and solve the problem?
If you know anything about the laws she's talking about, the stupidity of that statement is so vast as to defy any attempt to refute it.
Evidently a colossal level of stupidity is one of the prerequisites to qualify for that job...
Save babies and kill muggers.
What's the problem?
I was driving around the Arizona State campus in Tucson last Monday and the "No guns on campus" signs were quite prominent near the entrances to the area.
They forgot to add “if you agree with our position.” Next to my time in Boston, Universities are the most bigoted and intolerant places I have ever been. Try holding a conservative position in a class with a liberal professor. Debate goes right out the window.
Typical of ASU. I'll help ya with an ancecdote. Do you know the purpose of the police force at Arizona State? It's there to unlock classroom doors for Professors who are too scatterbrained to remember to bring their keys with them.
That was a typical call to the dispatch desk. The dispatcher I know always gave them the number to the custodial staff, then hung up.
UofA is in Tucson! Just saying, so you won’t upset the locals when you get your job. Tucsonans are fiercely proud of their Wildcats; to the point of calling us from ASU ‘Scum Devils’.
Actually, 9 new gun laws went into effect last week. I deleted the e-mail from Alan Korwin, but I could find a link if you’d like...
Sure, give the link to the 9 new guns laws if it's not too much trouble. Thanks.
Alan Korwin is the author of the state gun laws books and writes a weekly column called 'The Uninvited Ombudsman'. It's pretty good reading.
Here's the link to the Page Nine Blog.
Try as I might, I cannot find the 9 new laws linked on his pages. I'll keep looking. I may have them in my e-mail somewhere, who knows?
Page Nine is a great source of info, but hard to find stuff you are looking for. Alan sends out eblasts, here is the one from July 16 about the new AZ gun laws, good descriptions and he cites the bill numbers so you can look them up, if you want read the new laws as they appear in the AZ statutes, Alan has a link on his web site to do that:
Waiting until the last possible moment, Arizona governor Jan Brewer on
July 13 signed all eight gun-related bills enacted by the state legislature
in 2009. Two crucial bills, Constitutional Carry and penalty reduction for
discreet carry without a permit, failed passage at the last minute and
didn’t make it to her desk. The eight bills signed into law, which will
become effective on Sep. 30, 2009 (except SB 1242, effective immediately),
are:
HB 2569 Smuggling people for profit, involving a deadly weapon
SB 1113 CCW in liquor-licensed places OK without drinking, unless no-gun
signs
SB 1088 Domestic violence protection extended to romantic or sexual
partners
SB 1168 Parking lots cannot ban firearms locked in vehicles, with
exceptions
SB 1242 Exemptions from CCW and more for more “proper authorities”
SB 1243 Defensive display of a firearm in self defense defined and
protected
SB 1437 AZ High School Marksmanship Program instructor definition
expanded
SB 1449 Retroactive self-defense clarification (Harold Fish law)
At least 14 gun-related bills were introduced this year, with the few
anti-rights bills repudiated early in the session and defeated. One other
pro-rights bill died at the end, the effort to reduce required classes to
three or four hours for people already well trained in gun use through
military, police or private programs. Some 20 legislators walked out very
late on the final session (which went all night and ended at 7:30 a.m.)
stealing away votes that had been verbally committed and were needed for
passage of that and the petty offense amendment for discreet carry without
a permit. The pro-rights people were left with 30 votes, and needed 31 to
pass the laws.
The entire session was run in a bizarre manner — no legislative work for
months in the Senate while the Napolitano deficit was being resolved, then
an impossibly crowded and rushed legislative calendar in the final few
weeks, with no room for error, adjustment or contemplation. The procedures
were a disgraceful humiliating embarrassment to good governance.
Constitutional Carry, which would have allowed law-abiding Arizonans to
carry a firearm discreetly — with the same freedom they’ve had since
statehood in 1912 to carry openly — got tied up in the Rules committee in
the closing days of the session. A late amendment to the bill, which
created a conflict with federal law, forced Rules to hold the bill and
there wasn’t enough time left in the session to make the needed changes.
The amendment was added by Judiciary chairman Jonathan Paton (R-Tucson),
normally a good supporter of RKBA, who insisted he wouldn’t hear the bill
without the new language. The amendment criminalized smuggling guns across
the Mexican border, which DPS wants even though it’s a federal matter. That
carrot might have helped move the cart on Constitutional Carry, which DPS
is basically against, but in the end scuttled the bill.
Following standard practice, this year’s changes will be produced as an
insert and included with copies of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, posted on
our website, and available as a formatted pdf file or plain text for
downloading. This is a preliminary analysis for review and comment.
Summarizing this year’s changes:
KEY: AGOG Page# / Bill# / Statutes Affected / Description
43, 71, 79, 80 / SB 1113 / §§ 4-229, 4-244, 4-246, 11-441, 13-3102,
13-3112, 38-1102. Carry in restaurants for CCW permitees only
CCW-permit holders can carry in places licensed to serve alcohol, unless
the places post official signs from the Dept. of Liquor Licenses banning
entry to anyone with a firearm. The ban was written broadly enough to
prohibit anyone from carrying, even on-duty police or employees, if signs
are posted.
If access is not banned and you possess a firearm, you may not drink. If
you enter you have an affirmative defense against prosecution (meaning you
must prove your innocence) if you were not informed of the ban, the sign
fell down, the sign was posted less than 30 days before you were charged,
or you weren’t a resident of the state. The exemption for going in to seek
aid in an emergency has been preserved, and you have permission to go in
far enough to see if there’s a sign posted.
You can expect to see No Guns Allowed signs springing up all over the
state, featuring official wording and an image of a gun inside a red circle
with a slash through it. Drinking while carrying in a liquor-serving
establishment, or carrying in such a place if it’s posted for no guns, is a
class 3 misdemeanor.
The guns-in-restaurants bill also says: Members of a sheriff’s volunteer
posse who have received specified training (AZPOST) can bear arms while on
duty, with conditions. A U.S. law enforcement officer with 10 consecutive
years of service and a special picture ID can carry concealed without a
permit, and their most recent law-enforcement employer must issue the card
on request. AZPOST-certified LEOs who volunteer for their agency’s reserve
program are exempt from taking the CCW training program. Misconduct with
weapons in an act of terrorism is raised to a class 2 felony. Note that
terrorism is broadly defined (§13-2301) and this law could be applied
beyond the common understanding of terrorism (e.g., a felony with a firearm
intended to influence policy or affect the conduct of the state). Another
extra guarantee against localities banning LEOs from carrying firearms has
been added.
24 / SB 1088 / §13-3601 / Domestic violence expansion
Penalties for domestic-violence offenses, including restraining orders and
firearms confiscations, can now be applied, in addition to problems between
family members, to people who are or were in “a romantic or sexual
relationship.” The law is a response to the case of a woman murdered by her
boyfriend. A restraining order was unavailable because they weren’t
married. It’s unclear, as always, how much a piece of paper from a court
would have influenced a murderer. Now, people in a casual relationship have
an enormously powerful weapon they can use on each other in the event of a
quarrel — confiscation of any collection of arms and a ban on possession.
Questions linger as to how much of a relationship qualifies, which the
statute left ambiguous.
55, 70 / SB 1168 / §12-781 / Ban on prohibiting guns in parked vehicles
It’s unlawful for a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or
business entity (called the “responsible party” below for brevity) to
create a policy or rule that prevents a person from lawfully transporting
or storing any firearm in a privately owned motor vehicle if: 1 - the
vehicle is locked or the firearm is in a locked compartment on a
motorcycle; and 2 - the firearm is not visible. Any attempt to do so is
null, void, unenforceable and without legal effect.
The ban on gun bans in private vehicles doesn’t apply under four
conditions: 1 - possession of the firearm is already banned under federal
or state law; 2 - the vehicle is owned or leased by the responsible party
in which case the ban is at their discretion; 3 - the responsible party has
a facility secured by a fence or other physical barrier, and also limits
access by a guard or other security measure, and the responsible party
provides secure storage with ready access and retrieval, similar to the
gun-locker rules for public buildings and events; and 4 - compliance with
this statute would violate another applicable federal or state law. Nuclear
generating stations must comply with gun-locker requirements.
The parking area for a single-family detached residence is exempt from
this law. Department of Defense contractors whose property is located
wholly or partially on a military base are exempt from this law. A
responsible party can provide an alternate parking facility close to the
main facility, ban firearms at the main one, and allow them at the
alternate facility, as long as they don’t charge any extra fee.
Anticipating possible legal challenges from large corporations or other
property owners whose parking space is open to the public, the legislature
included a six-point set of findings, rare in state bills, to clarify that:
1 - the state and federal Constitutions provide strong protection for the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense; 2 - the enjoyment
of this right is impaired if people are deprived the right to keep arms in
their vehicles; 3 - people are deprived of their rights if firearms cannot
be kept in their private vehicles; 4 - your locked private vehicle is
private, not a public space, you have the right to furnish it any way you
like that is legal to enhance your comfort, security, ease of movement and
enjoyment of liberty; 5 - parking lot operators are not unduly burdened by
the presence of legally possessed property secured within the vehicle by
its owner; and 6 - this act is for the benefit and protection of people who
choose to exercise and enforce their fundamental right to bear arms in self
defense in their movements throughout this state, including in their
personal motor vehicles.
114 / SB 1243 / §13-421 / Defensive display of firearms protection
“Defensive display of a firearm” means: 1 - Verbally telling someone that
you have a firearm or can get one; 2 - Exposing or displaying a gun in a
way that a reasonable person would understand means you can protect
yourself against illegal physical or deadly physical force; and 3 - Placing
your hand on a firearm while it is in your pocket, purse or other means of
containment or transport.
Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person
would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself
against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical or
deadly physical force. A defensive display is not required before using or
threatening physical force, in a situation where you would be justified in
using or threatening physical force.
Defensive display is not justified if you intentionally provoke the other
person, or if you use a firearm in the commission of a serious offense or
violent crime (defined in §13-706 and §13-901.3).
This important new law clarifies that a proper defensive reach for or
announcement of firearm possession is an acceptable element in the
continuum of self defense, and should not be charged as a crime. Improper
display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g.,
disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault). It also
helps balance out the problematic and arbitrary “threatening exhibition” of
a gun allegation that prosecutors can make in charging a felony as a
“dangerous offense” (§13-702 and 704). The threat of this extra charge can
be used to coerce a plea agreement, and now this is balanced with a
specified stipulation of proper display of a gun without firing at a
potential assailant.
44 / SB 1437 / §15-714.01 / High school marksmanship training expansion
Instructors for the Arizona Gun Safety Program, a marksmanship course for
high school students, can be certified by a national association of
firearms owners, in addition to the Arizona Game and Fish Dept.
SB 1449 / Retroactive self defense (Harold Fish law)
In certain cases, “Laws 2006, chapter 199 applies retroactively...
regardless of when the conduct underlying the charges occurred.”
The state enacted amendments in 2006 to make it clear that, if a person
claims self defense, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant acted without justification (the appropriate “innocent until
proven guilty” standard). One of the laws amended, which had been quietly
slipped in by prosecutors without review ten years earlier, forced a
defendant to prove innocence, the exact opposite of what American laws
should be (it made you guilty unless you could prove your innocence, a
tyrannical standard). Part of these changes became known as the Castle
Doctrine — you can stand your ground if attacked, intruders in your home
are a legally recognized threat, and self defense was to receive robust
protection under the law.
The new rules were supposed to protect people in a predicament like Harold
Fish, a school teacher with a clean record out hiking in May 2004. He was
attacked by a homeless known troublemaker with violent dogs on a forest
trail outside Payson. Mr. Fish, who survived by shooting his assailant
three times in the chest at close range, was at first released in what
appeared an obvious self defense, but was then attacked by the county
attorney, in a trial that reeked of unfairness.
The legislature is here making it clear that people are entitled to the
full protection of the law, and the public’s safety will likely be enhanced
with this small measure that serves notice on the powers that be. Other
problems, like failure to fully inform juries, bad jury instructions,
exclusion of exculpatory or illuminating evidence, exorbitant cost and
inordinate timeframes, and other potholes in the criminal justice system
remain to be fixed.
HB 2569 (§13-2319) and SB 1242 (§13-3102)
Two additional gun laws will affect the statutes in the back of The
Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, but have little direct impact on the general
public or the text of the book. §13-2319 is amended to make smuggling
people for profit or a commercial purpose a class 2 felony if the offense
“involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.” In §13-3102,
we find that more “proper authorities” have been exempted from gun laws
that restrict the public, like carrying without a permit, concealed carry
in a car without a permit, making, having, transporting or selling
prohibited weapons, having a defaced deadly weapon, entering a public
establishment or public event with a deadly weapon after being told not to,
and more. The new crop of exempt special people includes community
correctional officers, detention officers, and special investigators with
DOC or the Dept. of Juvenile Corrections. Other sections of the bill repeat
language found in SB 1113, a common practice to help assure passage (if one
bill fails, the language gets through in the other bill).
It’s interesting to note that, at the federal level, a growth process like
this took place for decades, with a new batch of people added 32 times,
until the statute grew so embarrassingly long (one sentence of 741 words)
Congress shortened the law by 610 words, cutting out all the named groups,
but expanded the impact by simply making it applicable to “any officer or
employee of the United States. That statute, 18 USC §1114, makes it a
greater crime to kill them than to kill you or me. How that comports with
equal protection under the law is unclear.
Her logic is so flawed, Here is how I feel about it: Save a baby, shoot an abortionist! Ha!
I am so sick of Michael Crow, he is smart and he is evil. Rape on the ASU campus is such a huge problem. Apparently there is a new sport, get your date drugged and rape her. Crow knows this, he condones it, he protects his boys. But to act like he cares, Crow now has a new anti-rape program. It goes something like this: [girls] don’t leave your drink unattended (you will get slipped a micky), learn to say no (as opposed to expecting to be treated with respect), and my favorite, just don’t go out, stay at home, in your dorm, don’t ever do anything or you will be “asking for it.” NEVER ONCE does the program teach young women about their right and responsibility to self-defense, that they can learn to protect themselves from deadly threat using deadly force!
I was prompted to right this letter to the liberal rag of a newspaper in AZ after learning about his wonderful program...
As classes begin…
I remember sitting in a packed college lecture hall at ASU when a guest lecturer on criminal psychology asked the women in the room to raise their hand if they had experienced some form of sexual assault in their lifetime. Nearly half the women raised their hands. That was 1978.
Unfortunately, the numbers haven’t changed much. Review of college surveys on this subject reveal that most women on college campuses either have or are likely to have experienced sexual violence. 1 in 10 is what the DOJ says.
The “experts” have no solution to this epidemic. Women are told not to go out at night, not to go to isolated locations, blah, blah, blah. This is the “expert’s” advice. I say to the experts: You stay at home at night, you avoid isolated places (such as ASU’s campus parking lots and the alleys between the Tempe social venues), you live in fear and abandon your freedoms…
…don’t tell me to!
Here are some facts for women to emblazon in their minds, next time they are relieved of their freedoms:
Convicted rapists have admitted that they believe rape is an o.k. behavior: “at least it is [considered] normal,” according to one rapist quoted in a book called: Rape, the Misunderstood Crime.
Convicted rapist serve an average of 8 years in prison (nation wide). However, the penalties for rape vary greatly depending on the state in which the crime occurred, the age of the victim, and whether or not a weapon was used; so more than half of the arrests for forcible rape never make it to trial (the old “mutual consent” plea works every time). In addition, very few rape cases make it to trial, they end up dropped or the evidence (shockingly) becomes compromised.
As opposed to rape victims who on average have a higher suicide rate and on average suffer some sort of mental disability FOR LIFE.
Convicted rapists are protected by laws that designate them as “incapacitated” or having a “personality disorder.” These laws stem from the laws in the early 1930s known as: “special commitment,” “mentally disordered sex offender,” or “sexual psychopaths.” The purpose of these laws was to get these poor souls “treatment” and often resulted in reducing sentences or committing them to a hospital versus to prison so that the offender, once “cured,” may return to society.
As opposed to the fact that there is a very high rate of recidivism by these sexual predators and more than half do in fact repeat their crime, often resulting in more serious injury to their victim. I presume because they know they can get away with it, murder if needed, to satisfy their drive.
And if the unthinkable happens, will campus security protect you?
Sorry, the studies for campus security response times reveal a dismal assurance that security would reach the scene of the crime AT ALL let alone in time to prevent it. (stats from VA shootings report Cops response time 15 minutes, campus security, well, let’s just say their response time was way after the fact)
Even though there is no easy solution to preventing rape there is something…
…research that has studied victims who have been attacked have found that those who used more “active strategies” were generally more likely to avoid being raped. These experts say that “non-feminine behaviors” such as kicking and biting a.k.a. “active strategies” MAY reduce the occurrence of rape.
THE ONLY DETERRANT TO RAPE IS TO BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE RAPIST
I’ll keep my weapon just where I can get to it (under my skirt, tucked down my panties if needed). Tell your boys that, Michael Crow.
Good job getting all of this information out, myboyz!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.