Re: state firearms law preemption, Rep. Sue Gerard said:
"These rights and regulations need to be balanced against the needs of political subdivisions to protect their citizens, employees and property."
I understand your sentiments, Susan, but governments are under no legal obligation to protect individuals, only "to enforce the law." (see Warren vs District of Columbia 1981). If government has no responsibility in that area, who, then? Why the individual. How? I choose a Glock 21 or Kahr 9. My wife likes her Glock 23 or Smith & Wesson Chief's Special.
The question remains, why would you want cities to indiscriminantly disarm the good guys? The criminals, as you know, pay no heed. Your view of the concept of rights is off the mark as well. You appear to be saying that we may have individual rights as long as the majority says it is okay. This is a "Utilitarian" view of rights, that is, collective rights, which says that one's rights may be revoked by mere legislation at the whim and measure of what the majority feels is beneficial to them, with, or without any evidence in support. But our system of government was designed to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Even 250 million people cannot vote away one's right to worship, or to speak, or to have an abortion to protect a woman's life. If the state legislatures voted to amend the Constitution to allow slavery, would that fly, you think? How would such laws be enforced if the would-be slaves were armed to the teeth? Don't you wish the German Jews had a few million Mauser rifles sixty years ago? Surely you are not _that_ fearful of weapons?
Many gunphobes, courts, and elected officials like to say that "no right is absolute." Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Common Law said that the right to self defense was absolute. The right to keep and bear arms is a direct corrolary to that right.
Rep Sue: "Existing law only allows political subdivision to use trespassing laws to accomplish keeping guns out of courts or other buildings if they feel it is necessary."
The weapons checking statute found in ARS 13-3102(A)(10) applies to government buildings. All they need do is request to check the weapon (as one checks a coat) and store it cheerfully in the pistol locker as I have done numerous times at area court houses, for example. If you would like to fund monies to each building displaying such a sign so they may purchase pistol lockers, that would make me very happy. If a gun-toter refused to relinquish the firearm at that time (or leave) it would be a violation of 13-3102.
You may be aware that Governor Hull removed the magnetometers and X-ray machines from her building as being "too intrusive." She also has an aid who keeps a sign on her door stating, "This office protected by Smith & Wesson." If you were a crook, would you feel safe?
Rep Sue: "It's a sad commentary that people feel they need to be armed for protection in our city parks." It sure wouldn't make me feel safe or free."
Joel Berlow in his "Advice to the Privileged Orders" (1792) wrote the following: "A people that legislate for themselves, ought to be in the habit of protecting themselves; or they will lose the spirit of both."
Certainly we do need to protect ourselves. And the police agree. Point your web browser to a favorite police hangout called "Glock Talk" at www.glocktalk.com. Go over to the coptalk forum and ask them, these street cops, how they feel about laws which would disarm the peaceful in some vain hope of reducing crime. You may be shocked to learn that they would support a law like HB 2095.
Rep Sue: "It sure wouldn't make me feel safe or free."
Hmmm. You wouldn't feel safe or free if people were allowed to protect themselves in city parks. Do you feel the same for someone walking down a city sidewalk, or driving on a city street? Just how far would you go to restrict the good guys from carrying self defense weapons knowing that the bad guys would ignore the law, no, they would celebrate the law, knowing that they have a higher likelihood of finding an unarmed victim?
Frankly, passing HB2095 would make me feel both safe, and free. Safer because the crooks would have yet another "Safe Working Environment" taken away from them. It would make me feel more free because I would regain the American heritage of the presumption of innocence.
Ms. Gerard, it is clear that you have a good measure of fear towards firearms. Perhaps you would take me up on an invitation for some basic gun safety instruction at the Ben Avery range. After that, you might just see why it would be a good thing to offer tax credits to fund firearm safety in our schools.
Rick
Glendale