Skip to comments.
Brewer again vetoes bill allowing guns in public buildings(AZ)
azcapitoltimes.com ^
| 17 April, 2012
| Jeremy Duda
Posted on 04/18/2012 5:29:26 AM PDT by marktwain
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
The AZCDL was very careful to meet Governor Brewer's stated objections from last year with this bill. It is obvious that she vetoed it for other reasons. I thought she might have signed this one, if only not to placate the corrupt Mary Rose Wilcox.
1
posted on
04/18/2012 5:29:38 AM PDT
by
marktwain
To: marktwain
I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.It's easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won't be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well.
2
posted on
04/18/2012 5:38:40 AM PDT
by
Gay State Conservative
(Unlike Mrs Obama,I've Been Proud Of This Country My *Entire* Life!)
To: Gay State Conservative
This against individual freedom, increases government power, another law: like we need anymore of that. We need to go the other way, reduce the number of laws, reduce regulations , reduce government size and reduce government power.
3
posted on
04/18/2012 5:41:03 AM PDT
by
rurgan
(Sunset all laws at 3 years. China makes everything taking U.S. ability to manufacture)
To: rurgan
We need to go the other way, reduce the number of laws,reduce regulations,reduce government size and reduce government power. Generally speaking,that's correct.But not in this *particular* matter.Not *all* laws/regulations are evil,or even unnecessary.There *is* a place for government.If I go into a courthouse,for example,I want to be reasonably certain that I'm not gonna be shot by some clown who's just learned that his despised ex wife was awarded $5,000 a month in alimony by a judge.
4
posted on
04/18/2012 5:52:42 AM PDT
by
Gay State Conservative
(Unlike Mrs Obama,I've Been Proud Of This Country My *Entire* Life!)
To: marktwain
It seems to me that the bill was designed to prevent those who will not obey the “no guns” signs from bringing guns into “sensitive” places by installing thorough screening methods for ALL who enter.
So we continue to disarm the honest subject while those with bad intent walk right in with guns to do their worst with no fear of a good guy being armed and able to prevent or halt their bad intentions.
Or am I confused?
5
posted on
04/18/2012 5:54:03 AM PDT
by
Blue Collar Christian
(Liberals vote the way they feel, conservatives vote the way they think. NRA <BCC><)
To: marktwain
Can someone comment on what the rules are for private businesses?
Can a private business forbid a person from entering the premises with a gun (concealed or not)?
What about private business employees? Can employees be forbidden from bringing a gun to work?
I am 2nd amendment supporter who would like to know what the rules are for private businesses in Az.
To: marktwain
She wants it both ways. 2nd amendment proponent (YEAH RIGHT), but not in government where SHE works... except the people guarding HER are no doubt armed...
Politicians. A pox on them all.
7
posted on
04/18/2012 6:00:03 AM PDT
by
Nervous Tick
(Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
To: Gay State Conservative
Yes some laws , and some government is needed. But I disagree with you on this instance. The marxist/mainstream media has most people worried about some shooter shooting up things. Funny that I nor anyone that I've ever known has ever been a victim of such a shooter. We can't rely on government to protect us against any threat that can be imagined. Carry your own gun and protect yourself. This belief that government can perfect an imperfect world and life is part of the problem.With every new government power (law), Government 99% of the time doesn't do the job it's intended but instead government power and corruption grows. Life is hard and has many threats and risks. Probability wise the greatest risk to your life is a driver on the highway. This threat is thousands if not millions of times more probable than some crazy shooter shooting up a place. So what do we do ban all drivers?
What is that quote? “Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither”.
8
posted on
04/18/2012 6:02:21 AM PDT
by
rurgan
(Sunset all laws at 3 years. China makes everything taking U.S. ability to manufacture)
To: Gay State Conservative
--and , of course, you can be assured that " the clown" will surely abide by the sign on the door, which clearly states tha firearms aren't allowed.
--he will gasp, shudder at the thought that he may have violated the prohibition and slink away , cursing himself inwardly for being so foolish as to nearly violate such a prohibition---
--(sarc)
9
posted on
04/18/2012 6:04:08 AM PDT
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
To: Gay State Conservative
The courts already have the screening setups. This bill was intended to either install the screening (and gun lockers) where it would be in the best interest of pubic safety to prevent “some clown who’s just learned that his despised ex wife was awarded $5,000 a month in alimony by a judge” from bringing a gun or allow the honest citizen to be able to defend himself and others.
Your “clown” is not at all deterred from bringing a gun into a sensitive area where there is no screening.
Did you read the bill?
10
posted on
04/18/2012 6:05:22 AM PDT
by
Blue Collar Christian
(Liberals vote the way they feel, conservatives vote the way they think. NRA <BCC><)
To: rurgan
You’re absolutely correct. It’s the same old excuse; it is too expensive and requires too much effort on the part of our disgraceful public servants to go after bad guys, so we make laws to outlaw the liberties of free citizens under the pretext that a law will prevent a jerk from being a jerk.
These public servants then become addicted to this power and crave even more.
11
posted on
04/18/2012 6:11:17 AM PDT
by
Blue Collar Christian
(Liberals vote the way they feel, conservatives vote the way they think. NRA <BCC><)
To: Presbyterian Reporter
I don’t know the laws, but I know I can choose to not do business with a knucklehead who posts a “no guns” sign on his establishment, and I can choose not to work for same such employer.
I worked for a man I dearly love in CA the last tens years I was there before moving to AZ. He came to me one fine day with a document he had created for me to sign stating I was aware that being caught with a gun and/or ammunition on his property will make me subject to immediate dismissal. So I reached into my toolbox top drawer where my pistol was and grabbed a pen to sign the paper straight away. I then closed the drawer and told him he would put up with the pistol in my toolbox, or he would loose this valuable employee.
I worked for him another eight years and never heard about the incident.
12
posted on
04/18/2012 6:23:22 AM PDT
by
Blue Collar Christian
(Liberals vote the way they feel, conservatives vote the way they think. NRA <BCC><)
To: Gay State Conservative
I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.It's easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won't be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well. The bill says that if guns are to prohibited in a building, then security measures need to be installed (ie, metal detectors, etc) to ensure that guns are not brought in. In every court building that I've been to, they DO have metal detectors, for exactly your reason.
The only thing accomplished by a "no guns" rule for a non-secured building is to ENSURE that a crazy or a criminal will be the ONLY one with a gun (unless there's armed security).
13
posted on
04/18/2012 6:25:36 AM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
To: Gay State Conservative
I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.It's easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won't be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well. The proposed bill would prevent the above scenarios through the use of metal detectors and armed guards. How does the current law do so?
To: Blue Collar Christian
It seems to me that the bill was designed to prevent those who will not obey the no guns signs from bringing guns into sensitive places by installing thorough screening methods for ALL who enter. You are correct. The bill requires governments that wish to ban weapons in their facilities to actually do so, instead of simply putting up signs that only prevent the law abiding from carrying weapons in their facilities.
To: Presbyterian Reporter
Can someone comment on what the rules are for private businesses? Can a private business forbid a person from entering the premises with a gun (concealed or not)? What about private business employees? Can employees be forbidden from bringing a gun to work? I am 2nd amendment supporter who would like to know what the rules are for private businesses in Az. Private businesses can ban guns if they wish to.
Private businesses cannot ban employees from keeping guns locked in their cars.
To: Gay State Conservative
Why dother to lie, if you support the second amendment then you support the citizen being able to carry.
Shall not be infringed does not mean well the government can infringe if they want to.
17
posted on
04/18/2012 7:38:21 AM PDT
by
Ratman83
To: Gay State Conservative
>It’s easy to see a disgruntled husband,for example,who was just told by a judge that he won’t be able to see his kids going crazy and doing God-knows-what.
Interesting you should bring this up; what of Jurors? (Yes, a jury might be needed; the value in question being more than $20.)
According to the USSC, there is no affirmative obligation for Law Enforcement to ensure the safety of a private citizen; yet the Juror is obligated to go to the courthouse to perform his duties, a place where the carry of firearms by a “mere citizen” is verboten. I guess it’s fine to disarm them and then ensure that there is no obligation to protect them, no?
18
posted on
04/18/2012 7:55:07 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: marktwain
Hey Jan baby, I agree with you 100%, when your security guys are unarmed too.
Otherwise you're just another stinking political hypocrite.
Rules for me, rules for you, should be all the same.......baby.
19
posted on
04/18/2012 8:08:23 AM PDT
by
The Cajun
(Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Newt......Nuff said.)
To: Gay State Conservative
If I go into a courthouse,for example,I want to be reasonably certain that I'm not gonna be shot by some clown who's just learned that his despised ex wife was awarded $5,000 a month in alimony by a judge.Then perhaps you should arm yourself rather than disarming the rest of us.
You've got a funny way of being a "huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment".
20
posted on
04/18/2012 10:29:59 AM PDT
by
zeugma
(Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson