[marktwain]

The AZCDL was very careful to meet Governor Brewer's stated objections from last year with this bill. It is obvious that she vetoed it for other reasons. I thought she might have signed this one, if only not to placate the corrupt Mary Rose Wilcox.

[Gay State Conservative]

I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't care for *this* bill.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.There are plenty of other things that could happen as well.

[Blue Collar Christian]

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?

[Presbyterian Reporter]

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.

[Nervous Tick]

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.

[The Cajun]

Hey Jan baby, I agree with you 100%, when your security guys are unarmed too.
Otherwise you're just another stinking political hypocrite.
Rules for me, rules for you, should be all the same.......baby.

[itsahoot]

Brewer for President woo who111111 </sarcasm>

[nonsporting]

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,...

State law ALREADY requires the state to provide secure storage IF weapons are not allowed in public facilities. What new security measures is she talking about?

On first blush this law would have allowed the state to SAVE money by removing the storage requirement burden--no need to provide and maintain lockers, screening, security to support this screening function, etc.