"As a former Secretary of State (sic), I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to artibrary or politically-motivated decisions," Brewer wrote in her veto message to House Speaker Kirk Adams."
"Bills impacting our Second Amendment rights have to be crystal clear so that gun owners don't become lawbreakers by accident," she wrote in her veto message to Senate President Russell Pearce. The bill didn't define the "public right of way" where weapons could be carried on school campuses, and included K-12 schools where firearms are prohibited by federal law, Brewer wrote. While the bill was "widely advertised" as applying to colleges and universities, it expressly superceded a law that allows school districts to enforce prohibitions against weapons on school grounds, she wrote"
So her solution is what? No standards?
Thanks for that post.
Not sure I agree with her on the gun issue though.
Thank you for that explanation.
“Maybe if you all READ the reasons, you’d think differently instead of being KNEEJERKS.”
Unfortunately, you are SO correct. That happens a lot here where someone reads only a headline that doesn’t tell the whole story, and then goes ballistic against someone that they previously respected. Perhaps a course in “Thinking Out of the Box” or “Tunnel Vision Avoidance” is in order for some of these folks.
Her reasoning seems pretty clear to me. She wants to avoid (1) too much power in the hands of one individual (think flaming lib SoS) and (2) protect 2nd rights and avoid conflict with Federal law; she wants a law that can be successfully defended against legal challenges from the usual sources.
While I’m not sure what to think as to whether she did the right thing or not, at least she apparently READ the bills.