vacation in Arizona...
Posted on 03/02/2005 3:46:40 PM PST by Crackingham
The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to let people carry weapons - including guns, grenades, rockets, mines and sawed-off shotguns - into schools, polling places and nuclear plants if they claim they're only trying to protect themselves.
The vote on the legislation came after Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix, pointed out it would bar prosecution of those who want to bring a weapon into the House or Senate. Despite that, lawmakers gave it preliminary approval on a 30-16 margin.
But what's in House Bill 2666 surprised even Rep. Doug Quelland, R-Phoenix, who introduced the legislation and shepherded it through the House. He said he had no idea the legislation, crafted by constituents he wouldn't identify, was so broad that it would provide a catchall exemption in the state's weapons laws.
Quelland said he wants to ensure that those who carry a concealed weapon without getting the required state permit do not wind up being charged with a crime.
He said that, if it were up to him, anyone would be able to carry a weapon in a pocket or purse or in a holster beneath a jacket without getting state permission. Quelland said only people who prey on others should be prosecuted under gun laws.
But he conceded that's not what his bill does.
Current statutes list a series of acts that are a crime. These range from carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and having a deadly weapon on school grounds, to possessing certain "prohibited weapons," which includes bombs, grenades and automatic rifles.
The restrictions do not apply to peace officers, members of the military, correctional officers and anyone specifically authorized under state and federal law to have these weapons.
HB 2666 would add a new exemption: any U.S. citizen "who carries a deadly weapon for personal protection or the protection of others." The exception also extends to those who are protecting "the state" as well as any home - whether or not the person lives there.
Some of the weapons that would be allowed under this legislation might still be banned under federal law. But Miranda warned his colleagues to consider what they are proposing.
"Even if the speaker (of the House) sent me a letter saying that I was not to carry a weapon into this House, I could do so," he said. Miranda said he could not be prosecuted "so long as I said I was there to protect myself from anyone."
The Arizona Daily Star is hysterical.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Hysteria \Hys*te"ri*a\, n. [NL.: cf. F. hyst['e]rie. See
Hysteric.] (Med.)
A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into paroxism or fits.
Note: The chief symptoms are convulsive, tossing movements of the limbs and head, uncontrollable crying and laughing, and a choking sensation as if a ball were lodged in the throat. The affection presents the most varied symptoms, often simulating those of the gravest diseases, but generally curable by mental treatment alone.
And the problem with this is???????????????????
---
The problem is that the media is appalled. Good for AZ.
Sorry I am a committed conservative but when someone says "law guns grenades rockets mines shotguns and school" in the same sentence...well, it just doesn't pass my smell test.
I think that is what you hire police for. I think when you are around hundreds of kids, in a building devoted to their education and well-being, certain exceptions have to be made about who and what is allowed in the building. And the bottom line is that those kids shouldn't have had those guns - not in school - not anywhere and it's the parents' fault.
I am a committed conservative but when you have words like "law guns rockets grenades mines and school" in the same sentence, as I said to the other poster, it just doesn't pass my smell test.
I can see that I'm about to get lambasted here so I am respectfully withdrawing from this thread for others to carry on the discussion.
No lambaste intended from me, if that is your concern.
Just saying that nobody wants underage people to have weapons, and that no responsible citizen would be wandering around with rockets and mines and bombs anyway.
"I'm not so happy about the nuclear plants. "
And the first time a malcontent pulled his piece to do harm, 12 others would saw the SOB in half with their legally carried weapons. Nasty deterent, wot?
"I think that is what you hire police for."
Police are nothing more than after the fact scribes of the facts as they appear at some time AFTER THE HARM HAS OCCURRED!
Rarely does an officer catch a criminal prior to the act.
I prefer to 'strike back first'.
Well, the proposed law would, if nothing else, put paid to bullying - wouldn't it?
The point is ... that prohibiting these actions does absolutely nothing to protect anyone. Did such laws stop the Columbine killers? These killers might have been stopped if any teacher had been armed. Keeping and bearing arms should not be a crime.
As far as I know, a grenade might have been exactly the right weapon for the staff to have used against the terrorists who took over a school in Russia. Being disarmed simply acted as a magnet to criminals and terrorists.
short barrelled shotguns & rifles fall under the category of "other" and the transfer tax is quite a bit less than the the tax on transfer of machineguns. Machineguns & short barrelled rifles and shotguns are not prohibited, only taxed. In the process of taxing you, the JBT's at ATF conduct a background check on you.
That's right, Norman Bates said that. Thank you for pointing that out. I never said keeping and bearing arms should be a crime. I believe strongly in private firearm ownership and second amendment rights. What I stated was my opinion. If you disagree, fine. You may not. But please spare me the piling-on.
And what happens when a teacher leaves his personal gun in his desk, a student takes it while the teacher goes to the bathroom or office or whatever, and uses it to kill another student? Can you imagine the outcry? If you want to protect students then install metal detectors and have a policeman stationed at the school during school hours. Or better yet instill some moral values into these children and hold their parents responsible.
By your argument it is a crime against second amendment rights for not being allowed to carry a concealed weapon for "self-defense" to a Bush rally. Perhaps you'd want to carry a grenade there, too!
FR can be a funny place. First I get lambasted for supporting creationism on an evolution thread. Then I get lambasted for opposing human cloning on a UN thread. Now I get lambasted for saying that perhaps it's not such a great idea to allow non-law enforcement people to bring guns, grenades, rockets, or mines (!) to a place were young children are supposed to learn. I know, I know. I really should know better...
Hmm...Let me think about this. What would I do if I was running a private school? Moral values and parental responsibility? You bet. Metal detectors and state-controlled policemen? Never.
Sounds like you've had a rough day.
My opposition against laws which prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms is that the laws do no good, not that criminals should be allowed to attack school children with grenades. You are not going to protect school children by passing laws which disarm me and create free-fire zones for criminals.
Why not in schools. Kids commonly brought rifles and such to schools and was just required to remove the firing pin. I allways had shotgun shells in my pockets from skeet shooting. During this time period there was no murders in schools. How can we call us fee if we don't trust the peole with guns? Should be allowed in churches , schools or wherever. I had my shotgun in my dorm in college.No restriction and no problems.
vacation in Arizona...
Except Vermont and Alaska aren't so loopy that you can carry grenades. That just defies common sense.
Grenades are a bit out of line, no defensive purpose for them.
However, firearms should not be restricted, there's just no point.
Put me on that list. I grew up the son of a cop. Spent six years in the Marines. And I practice with my firearms every chance I get. I've had one speeding ticket in twenty years worth of driving and no other run ins with the Law.
With this kind of record I need to pay over $200, get the legal equivalent to a rectal exam, and spend an entire day in a class I could probably sit down and right the test for BEFORE ever stepping into the classroom? Just to exercise a Right?
50 State Alaska style carry laws. Finally get everyone back in tune with the clear meaning of the Second Amendment. Law abiding people today won't be turned into criminals of bumbling idiots because of this legislation.
I have problems with some of your arguements. First of all, in the example that a teacher has a gun in his/her desk and a student takes the gun and kills someone with this. This presumes the gun causes the crime. It is the person who causes the crime. If the student wanted to kill another just grab a baseball bat or the axe from the fire drill. It is illogical to prevent the tools because someone could use it for evil.
Also you said that morals and personal responsibility needs to be instilled in the students. Then you said hold the parents responsible. If you hold another person responsible for a crime someone else does, that does not make the criminal responsible. You are transfering responsibility to a third party , whether that is a parent or some one else. Your statement was inherently contradictory. Also if you want people to be responsible you have to trust them to do the right thing. Again that is a trust issue, should the people be allowed to use dangerous tools. Young people have to be trusted to do the right thing. Also they have to be taught that guns are a tool and can be dangerous. Classes in gunhandling should be taught in school as well as the proper gun ethics.
Farmers and students in my fathers days were taught how to use explosives since that was a useful skill. Now to have some pipes and ferilizer you are presumed that your are making bombs and are a terrorist.
Remember police are to catch criminals, not protect you. That is your responsibility. IT was not the authorities that made the last jet to crash and thus fail to complete its mission on 9/11, it was the people , the passengers. The best preventive measures from bad people is the general populace. If people had not been trained and told to allow the hijackers to be handled by professionals, none of the attacks would have suceeded. Ordinary people will do what is necesssary if they feel that that they can without being condemned.
I watched the Columbine disaster, and the police did nothing, but prevent ordinary people from doing something. This prevailing attitude that we are not supposed to act and only allow the authorities to act for us, is to transfer our own freedoms and authority. This is not the attitude of free people.
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.