AZ. House Bill 2291p

L

lcpiper

New member
Arizona's reaction is HB2291p
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2291p.pdf


Similar to other states AZ is looking to pass a bill that tells the federal Government to back off, these are State issues to settle. Notice this does not seem to conflict with the NFA and and other Federal Firearms laws currently in place.

At the same time last night I got an email from Mr. Barber of the AZ Congress who has himself submitted a new AZ. House bill that establishes a state AWB, Mag limits, Background checks for private sales, the entire Obama enchilada.
 
Hopefully they'll pass that. Not sure what it would do, exactly in the grand scheme of things, but if nothing else, it's a gesture that shows we don't want stupid restrictions.

I had sent Ron Barber an email last week, and he replied to me this morning. Of course, the language of the email was basically, we need to work together, and there's no single thing that will prevent tragedy, blah, blah, blah. Of course, he sneaked language about wanting to ban "high capacity" (quotes, because that's their language, not mine. The 15 round mag for my G19 is a standard capacity...) and "assault weapons."

Fortunately, I don't think there is much chance of any anti-gun bill from passing. But stranger things have happened.
 
So because the NRA won't back it, it's a dead issue?

This bill is completely symbolic. There is basically no way to enforce it, and I highly doubt the state would enforce the law in a way that interfere's with people and businesses within the state. It's designed to send a message.
 
Wait up here. Explain how it is unenforceable?

Local cops have arrested Feds on violations of local and federal laws in the past. We all know even Federal Agents sometimes boff it and mess themselves over just like anyone else. So they can be arrested for violating a state's law.

You guys are correct that this is a message and the message is, "The 10th is alive and well". It's also a message that draws a line. That this is a State issue, not a Federal issue.

But if it were voted on and passed, and was signed into law. It doesn't mean it's a moot point or can't be enforced, it means there is going to be a conflict coming. A contention over the 10th is not a bad thing the way I see it. It's way past time that the States started telling the Fed to back up. Our states have sold themselves to the Federal government at almost every turn and the Fed continues to take our money in the form of taxes and use it as a club to keep the States in obedience.

I am very happy to live in a State where the Governor has the courage to face the President and tell him NO. Jan Brewer has already told them to put up or shut up on Immigration in Arizona so I think her pen will touch paper if the AZ. Congress takes this to a vote and it passes.

You don't think she chose this photo-op by random do you.
035.jpg
 
Oh, believe me, I'm very happy living in this state. I think Jan Brewer is great, even though she vetoed the bill that would let CWP holders carry on University property...not sure why she did that.

Unenforceable was probably the wrong word. It could be enforced...the question is, would we (as in, the State of Arizona) really want to? Remember when Texas and a couple other states were going to pass bills that would make certain types of passenger screening illegal (meaning that TSA's normal procedures would be illegal)? I do, I was working for TSA at the time (it was a big mistake that I really do regret...I want nothing to do with that organization ever again...but back on topic). The Feds threatened to make the FAA cancel flights over it, stating that Texas wouldn't have security measures strong enough to ensure the safety of passengers. Texas backed down, because it would be detrimental to the Texas economy.

I commend our lawmakers and Governor for taking a stand against tyranny. But there's so much the Feds could do in response (even though I don't think they should have the ability to) that this really can't be anything more than a symbolic gesture. Though, I certainly do hope they make it more than just a symbol.

EDIT: By the way, something to keep in mind. The Civil War started as basically contention over states rights, and the 10th Amendment.
 
Reading on that judgment She said the bill was simply poorly written and she want's to be sure gun owners are protected from a poorly written law. I can see her point where guns are concerned.
 
Reading on that judgment She said the bill was simply poorly written and she want's to be sure gun owners are protected from a poorly written law. I can see her point where guns are concerned.
Click to expand...

I can understand where she's coming from, I suppose. It seems that something would have been better than the nothing we have now though. My wife works for the U of A, and it'd be real nice if she could carry. She was on campus as a student during that shooting in the early 2000's. Most don't even remember it now. And through years of listening to politicians speak, things like "poorly written" and "want to protect so and so" usually (not always) mean there's another underlying, but unspoken reason.

Remember, Feinstein's AWB is designed to protect citizens more than the poorly written '94 AWB. ;)

But again, I'm largely happy with my Governor...not so much with the Representative of my Congressional District, Ron Barber.
 
If Brewer is waiting for something to be written more concisely I commend her. Does anyone know if there is a re-write in the works?

David
 
Our State legislature is mostly tied up waiting to see which shoe drops first, new Federal gun Control or New Federal Immigration Reform.

It's a fools bet which will do anything at all good for our State.
 
Does anyone know if there is a re-write in the works?
Click to expand...

I think there was a bill going through the Senate around the middle of last year, not sure what's been done about it beyond that.
 
Gaerek said:
It seems that something would have been better than the nothing we have now though.
Click to expand...
Not so.

Having been involved in legislative affairs as a committee member for a professional society for many years, I have seen first-hand what more experienced members of the committee told me: Legislators absolutely don't like being told they goofed, and they HATE having to go back and fix a bad/flawed law. There's no positive press to be had from "We admit that we messed up badly when we enacted ___ last year, so this year we're going to fix it."

More often, if a bad law gets enacted to remain bad law for a very long time, until some specific event comes up that shows just HOW bad it is and makes it clear that it MUST be fixed. That probably won't happen until at least most of those who were originally involved in enacting it have left office.

A few years ago I was actively involved in achieving the repeal of an incredibly flawed law in my state that had been on the books for more than 80 years. It was a criminal offense law. In over 80 years, there had no been ONE arrest and prosecution under this law. When a police department finally did arrest someone and bring them to trial, the defense won an acquittal on a directed motion because the prosecution had not understood what thee law even said. The prosecution introduced exactly zero evidence that the defendant had violated either of the two halves of the law. The judge agreed.

And, ultimately, the legislature agreed. Rather than try to "fix" a law that obviously wasn't needed, they wisely (for once) just repealed it. And it "only" took eighty years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top