Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:03:32 -0700 From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde) Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: HB 2347 - State preemption of firearms regulation To: bbrother@azleg.state.az.us (Bill Brotherton) Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Representative Brotherton,
Quite frankly I find your response disingenuous. This just does not involve guns or the Second Amndment. It has to do with Article II, Section 26 of Arizona's constitution. What part of "shall not be impaired" in this provision don't you understand? It has to do with Freedom. I hear legislators claim that they support Freedom, yet you give short shrift to many of those freedoms, due to political correctness.
Your response also reveals the typical politician's myopia. You stated that you have not "supported any legislation that would toughen gun laws, neither will I support legislation to weaken them." Your statement starts from a wrong premise. Your constitutional duty as a legislator is to insure that laws that are passed further secure the rights of the citizens (whether or not a particular citizen chooses to exercise that right), not restrict them. Laws that restrict or reduce a right are invalid. So instead of looking to "strengthen" or "weaken" gun laws you would better serve the citizens of and vistors to Arizona by insuring that our rights are protected. I don't think I have to remind you that you took and oath to defend Arizona's Constitution.
I have a slogan that I use and I believe you will discover that says it all.
"Know liberty, know security" - "No liberty, no security"
For every little chip that is taken out of the liberties of the people, so too is a chip taken in the people's security. That is the lesson that should have been learned from history.
It is amazing how freedom always takes a particular back seat when the idea of guns is addressed. When it comes to freedom, it does not matter whether it involves speech (and I am not talking about screaming fire in a crowded theater), religion, the press, taking property, trial by jury or guns, freedom is freedom and as long as I don't interfere with your freedom, you have no right to interfer with my freedom. The current anti-gun sentiment in this country is interferring in my freedom without ever showing how my freedom to own and carry a gun interfers in yours or anyone else's.
It does not matter whether the Sarah Brady's of the world choose not to exercise their freedom to carry firearms to protect themselves. But, her choice not to exercise that right, does not give her or you for that matter, the authority to regulate any of my freedoms as long as my exercise of the right does not interfer with your rights or the rights of the Sarah Brady's. Yet when the Sarah Brady's declare their intent not to exercise a right, those same Sarah Brady's then come to the legislatures and demand in a shrilled, hystericalvoice that laws be passed so that the rest of us can't exercise that right. What is so amazing (or maybe it really isn't) is that foolish legislators go along with this irrational reasoning.
So until you and the rest of the legislature can give a rational explanation on how regulating my freedom to carry a firearm makes you or the Sarah Brady's of this world more free or secure (because that is what you are trying to do, is let everyone believe that they will be more free and secure, by regulating some of the freedoms that I choose to exercise), then you know that the current state of the firearms regulation laws in this state are patently in violation of Article II, Section 26 of Arizona's Constitution.
The question I have for you is which right is next?
BTW, my comment about Gun Free zones, had nothing to do with the schools. It had to do with laws that are slowly but surely going to make it impossible to open carry, because the laws you are passing are only permitting Concealed Carry Permit holders to carry in those areas traditionally acceptable for those who choose to open carry. Such as city parks. Next you guys will try to pass laws that will only permit concealed carry permit holders to carry on the streets.
Not one law that is on the books today will stop the next crazed fool who decides to go on a shooting spree. All it will do is make us honest citizens unarmed targets for that crazed fool. The occurances are now too many to leave the evidence in the category of anecdotel. So don't give me any platitudes about being a gun owner and a Native Arizonan. If you are not a proponent of HB 2347 then you have betrayed every other gun owner and native Arizonan
In order for you to understand what is really involved, I urge you to go to the historical records and debates concerning this provision of Arizona's Constitution. I'll save you the trouble and attach the text of the debates.
The records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 Pages 678-79; Edited by: John S. Goff (C) The Supreme Court of Arizona
Mr. Chairman: Are there any objections to Section 32?
Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out all of Section 32. I never in all my life found it necessary to carry a six-shooter and I have passed through nearly all the scenes and experiences of this wild and unsettled country. Carrying arms is dangerous. It is a very dangerous thing to oneself and to one's associates and should not be permitted under any circumstances. I have seen lives lost and innocent blood spilled just through the carrying of arms, concealed weapons under one's coat or shirt. It is most dangerous and vile; a practice that should never be permitted except in times of war and never in times of peace. Think of it; carrying a six shooter or a knife or some other terrible arm of defense, and then in a moment of heated passion using that weapon. I do not believe in it and I move to strike out that section.
Mr. Webb: I second that motion for I agree with the gentleman from Maricopa that it is a ernicious thing and should not be included in this bill. I too, in all my experiences, have never seen the time when it was necessary to carry concealed weapons except in times of Indian troubles, and have had many and varied experiences, in cow camps. I have been in many places where some might deem it necessary to come armed, but I did not, nor do I believe it necessary to do so now. We are no longer a frontier country, and if we did not need arms in the early days of pioneering this country, we do not now, and I second the motion.
Mr. Crutchfield: I move to amend by inserting after the word "impair" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "...but the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime."
Mr. Baker: That is all right and I second the motion. Mr. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by striking out all of Section 32 and substituting the following in lieu thereof: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for their safety and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law."
Mr. Feeney: I second that motion.
Mr. Chairman: The question comes up on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Cochise, Mr. Parsons, to strike out Section 32, and insert in lieu thereof his amendment. Those in favor of this motion answer "aye," opposed "nay". The motion is lost. The question now comes up on the amendment offered by Mr. Crutchfield to insert after the word "impaired" in line 9, page 7, the following words: "by the legislature shall have the right to regulate the wearing of weapons to prevent crime." Those in favor of the amendment say "aye", those opposed "nay". The secretary will call the roll.
Roll Call showed: 22 "Ayes" 23 "Nays"
Mr. Chairman: The motion is lost, and Section 32 will stand approved as read unless there are other amendments. Are there any objections to Section 33?
[25 November, Evening]
End of Journal Entry
What was originally approved and ratified as Article II, Section 32 in Arizona's first Constitution is now Article II, Section 26. So I again ask you, given the legislative history, which is something you know about as a legislator, what part of "shall not be impaired" don't you understand.
The initiatives can be avoided for now by simply putting preassure on Speaker Weiers to bring HB 2347 to the floor. Let's see who the real freedom lovers are in our legislature. What have you got to loose, the next election? If you are a gun owner, as you claim to be, ten you owe it to every Arizonan to insure this bill passes and gets signed into law by the governor.
g'day John wilde
Bill Brotherton wrote:
> Dear Mr. Wilde:
>
> I am a third generation native of Arizona and a gun owner. I
> understand that some folks believe that their right to possess
> a gun cannot be restricted in any manner. Obviously that isn't
> true. Just like the 1st amendment doesn't allow someone to yell
> "Fire" in a crowded theater, the rights to bear arms in both
> the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions are subject to reasonable
> restrictions. There are no U.S. Supreme Court cases stating
> that the 2nd Amendment gives citizens an individual right to
> bear arms and the Arizona caselaw on this area states that
> reasonable restrictions can be put on firearm possession and
> use.
>
> Currently we have generally accepted "gun free" zones such as
> schools, airliners, courthouses, etc. I doubt there is much
> public will to change that. I have briefly reviewed
>
> your proposed legislation and note that you will certainly
> garner much opposition and money in opposition from the
> business community. Also the apparent elimination of the
> concealed carry laws will also bring folks out. The thing that
> gun advocates fail to realize is even
>
> though there are many gun owners out there, like me, they
> aren't nearly as zealous on this issue as the small minority
> that support this type of legislation. Thus far, I have not
> supported any legislation that would toughen gun laws, neither
> will I support legislation to weaken them. Obviously not all
> gun owners agree on these issues.
> Thank you,
> Bill Brotherton