Posted on 02/17/2005 1:11:52 PM PST by hsmomx3
As the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 1363, I was disappointed in the Arizona Republic's coverage of the legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their self-defense firearms into restaurants and other establishments that serve alcohol. The article seemed as if it was intended to scare the public.
It referred to citizens being able to carry "rifles and shotguns" into bars and nightclubs. While this is technically true because Arizona statute refers to "firearms," instead of "handguns," it is not a legitimate issue.
The same law currently pertains to McDonalds, Burger King, retail stores, hospitals, day care centers and every other property in Arizona not posted to prohibit firearms possession.
However, we never see citizens carrying long guns in these locations. If SB1363 is signed into law, we will not see them in restaurants and bars either. If for no other reasons, citizens do not carry long guns in public because they know full well that they will attract the immediate attention of the local SWAT team.
An inexplicable omission in the article was the failure to inform the public that there are 34 states that have laws similar to what is proposed in my legislation. In fact, SB 1363 is more restrictive than virtually all of the laws in these states because it prohibits the consumption of alcohol by citizens carrying firearms. Alaska is the only other state to prohibit consumption.
There have been no problems in these 34 states, as is evidenced by the fact that none has attempted to repeal its law. As an elected official, I believe that my constituents will be at least as trustworthy as the citizens of these 34 states.
The opponents of this legislation claim that establishment owners will experience an increase in their insurance premiums if SB 1363 is enacted.
For two years now, they have been publicly challenged to provide evidence from any of the 34 states that this has occurred. They have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever. It is because it has not happened.
No property owner anywhere in America has been held liable because he or she has allowed the lawful carry of firearms. Insurance premiums are based on claims that have been paid. Since none has ever been paid, premiums will not increase. This is simply one more scare tactic used by the opponents of my legislation. If this becomes a problem in the future, property owners have the right to post their property to prohibit firearms.
It is my hope that the Arizona Republic would simply report on the facts -- all of the facts -- and not play on the fears of the public.
sounds like Harper has a brain in his head and a spine in his back
New Hampshire has never prohibited carry of firearms in bars, since the 1923 enactment of its concealed-carry licensing system.
sadly, GA does restrict carry in this way.
They don't see me carry now and they won't after this passes. The only difference is I'll be carring legally. Well, I'll be legal after they change the nonconsumption clause.
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.