AZ: Legislature Sends Reform of Firearms Definition to Governor

Gun Watch ^ | 24 April, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On 22 April, the Arizona legislature passed SB 1366, a reform of the definition of what is a firearm in Arizona law.  The legislation now goes to Governor Brewer, who has 5 working days to veto it, sign it, or allow it to become law.  The fate of the bill was uncertain until the last minute.   The bills supporters were able to use parliamentary maneuvering to bring the bill up for a vote, where it passed easily.

Arizona has long suffered under two potentially contradictory definitions of what is a firearm under the law.   I taught these two definitions for fifteen years as a concealed carry instructor, and no one could ever be sure which definition would be applied to any given situation.  The problem was that one part of the law defined a firearm as a device that expelled a projectile by means of an explosion, while another defined a firearm as a device that expels a projectile by means of explosive expansion of a gas.   This was sometimes used to include airguns as firearms.   The new definition would change both to be the same, and include these words:

 rapidly expanding gases created by a burning propellant or burning powder.

The new definition  positively removes airguns from the definition of firearms.  

It seems likely that Governor Brewer will sign the bill.   She recently vetoed two gun law reform bills and may feel the need to mend fences with second amendment supporters.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch 

[marktwain]

A simple definitional reform. I think Governor Brewer will sign it.

[Terry L Smith]

I would hope so, too, since in some states, a “fire-arm” is anything that propels a projectile with enough force to do damge or harm.

You can see the idiocy of that one.

[houeto]

I would hope so, too, since in some states, a “fire-arm” is anything that propels a projectile with enough force to do damge or harm.

Damn, that would include a sling shot!

[marktwain]

There are many places that outlaw slingshots.

[houeto]

There are many places that outlaw slingshots.

Where have I been? I did not know that.

[Dead Corpse]

It's not a FIREarm unless there is, you know... Fire.

Amazing how some legislatures and litigators toss common sense out the window and twist a mere word to change the plain meaning of things...

Should be some kind of fraud penalty for that crap.

[Terry L Smith]

Dear houeto,

It was meant to do that!

[houeto]

It was meant to do that!

Disgusting! That means if I throw a rock, I just used a 'fire' "ARM".

[Terry L Smith]

Dear houeto,

I think Shakespeare knew this was coming ... “Oh, to suffer the slings and arrows...”

Now, ‘sling’ reminds me of my visit to the San Diego Zoo. Talk about ‘slingers’! I could stand there, raise my right hand, as I stood before the primate enclosure, and a few would come and squat there, and raise their hand, and be still for a picture. YET!! In the next moment, a few of the younger “I think locals since I did not parlez-vous thier dialect” came by, noisy as ever, and ALL the primates became animated, gathered over there, where those folks stopped, also with all sorts of animated gestures. Well, the primates a-started flinging all of their ‘chips’ at these folks, while one or two would come to me, squat still and raise a hand, while I was there! So, under a primate’s protective gaze, and quiet manner, I watched others, more noisy, get pelted, for a good 4 or 5 minutes. Though they are NOT, I could almost discern a halfway sort of snicker from one of the ones near me. So, I hand-to-mouth chuckled, raised my hand again, and exited, stage left, unpelted, and glad of so, too! (It was summer.)