Posted on 04/18/2012 5:29:26 AM PDT by marktwain
For the second year in a row, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to carry guns in government buildings.
HB2729 would have required any government entity in Arizona to allow firearms in public buildings, unless the buildings had adequate security measures to ensure that no one could bring a gun inside.
“I vetoed a similar measure last year, and it appears the majority of my concerns were not addressed in House Bill 2729,” Brewer said in her veto letter. “I am a strong proponent of the Second Amendment and I have signed into law numerous pieces of legislation over these past few years to advance gun rights. However, I cannot support this measure in its current form.”
In her veto letter, Brewer said she was concerned about the bill’s cost to government entities that would be forced to implement new security measures if they wanted to keep guns out of public buildings, and said decisions on whether to allow guns in “sensitive locations” such as city council chambers should be made by citizens, law enforcement officials and government leaders.
She also cited U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s words from the landmark Second Amendment case ~Heller v. District of Columbia,~ in which the conservative justice said governments have a right to prohibit firearms in sensitive places such as government buildings.
“Decisions made by government officials at the state, county and municipal level impact all areas of life and can have a profound impact upon an individuals’ family and livelihood. Emotions can run high,” Brewer wrote.
Brewer appeared to invoke the 1997 shooting of Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox following a board meeting. Wilcox last week wrote a letter urging Brewer, who served with her on the Board of Supervisors at the time, to veto the bill.
Wilcox lauded Brewer’s veto.
“I’m grateful that common sense prevailed over the ideological views of a few. Government employees will sleep better tonight,” Wilcox said in a press statement.
The governor said many government entities that wanted to continue prohibiting firearms in public buildings would have to spend “untold dollars” to enact new security measures such as the ones at the Legislature and the Executive Tower. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimated that security measures would cost up to $113,800.
“If nothing else, the result would be extensive confusion regarding where guns are permitted or not permitted in public buildings,” Brewer wrote.
Brewer said the bill did not address the concerns she had when she vetoed SB1201 in 2011, though it was not apparent which concerns she was referring to. In her 2011 veto letter, Brewer focused on language that would have allowed guns at K-12 schools and on the “double standard” it would have created for the Legislature and other public bodies. But HB2729 would have left intact laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms on school grounds.
Rep. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, the bill’s sponsor, could not immediately be reached for comment.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
What is that quote? “Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither”.
--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)
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?
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.
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.
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).
The proposed bill would prevent the above scenarios through the use of metal detectors and armed guards. How does the current law do so?
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.
Private businesses can ban guns if they wish to.
Private businesses cannot ban employees from keeping guns locked in their cars.
Shall not be infringed does not mean well the government can infringe if they want to.
>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?
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".
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.