(Arizona Gov.) Brewer vetoes gun bills

[240 is Back]

This is what the PEOPLE want.  She vetoed it.  This is what their state HOUSE, which they elected, voted on and passed.   Brewer has been quite the liberal in the last few months, overriding the will of the people.  


She's horrible on gun rights.  It's all about HER power - not what the people want.


Source: Arizona Daily Star

Arizonans will not be allowed bring their guns into public buildings, at least not this year.

Gov. Jan Brewer this afternoon vetoed HB 2339 which would have allowed those who have a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon to ignore a "no guns" sign posted at the door. The only way a government agency could keep out all weapons would have been to install metal detectors and place armed guards at each public entrance.

Separately, Brewer vetoed legislation to add more teeth to existing laws that pre-empt the right of cities to enact their own gun laws.

HB 2517 would have required a court to assess a fine of up to $5,000 against any elected or appointed government official, or the head of any administrative agency, if there is a knowing and willful enactment of a local gun law that exceeds the restrictions permitted by the state.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/brewer-vetoes-gun-bills/article_b1477cc4-ca7a-11e3-bd05-001a4bcf887a.html

[JOHN MATRIX]

Thats unusual..

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

This is what the PEOPLE want.  She vetoed it.  This is what their state HOUSE, which they elected, voted on and passed.   Brewer has been quite the liberal in the last few months, overriding the will of the people.  


She's horrible on gun rights.  It's all about HER power - not what the people want.


Source: Arizona Daily Star

Arizonans will not be allowed bring their guns into public buildings, at least not this year.

Gov. Jan Brewer this afternoon vetoed HB 2339 which would have allowed those who have a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon to ignore a "no guns" sign posted at the door. The only way a government agency could keep out all weapons would have been to install metal detectors and place armed guards at each public entrance.

Separately, Brewer vetoed legislation to add more teeth to existing laws that pre-empt the right of cities to enact their own gun laws.

HB 2517 would have required a court to assess a fine of up to $5,000 against any elected or appointed government official, or the head of any administrative agency, if there is a knowing and willful enactment of a local gun law that exceeds the restrictions permitted by the state.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/brewer-vetoes-gun-bills/article_b1477cc4-ca7a-11e3-bd05-001a4bcf887a.html

Good for her.  If a business has a "No Guns Allowed" sign....then people should respect that shit.

[Archer77]

Good call.  The owner of the property should have the right to decide whether guns are permitted on their property

[240 is Back]

Good call.  The owner of the property should have the right to decide whether guns are permitted on their property

Does everyone agree with this?   A landlord should be able to say "No guns allowed" by tenants?  A restaurant should be able to say "No guns allowed in my place"?   Punishable by law?

[Archer77]

Does everyone agree with this?   A landlord should be able to say "No guns allowed" by tenants?  A restaurant should be able to say "No guns allowed in my place"?   Punishable by law?

It's tricky.   I would argue that a gun ban should not apply to a place of residency. 

[240 is Back]

It's tricky.   I would argue that a gun ban should not apply to a place of residency. 

Conservatives would have a FIT if somehow, people who disobeyed a Walmart or Mom & Pop grocery sign saying "No guns allowed", who carried anyway - were given 5 years in prison. 

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

It's tricky.   I would argue that a gun ban should not apply to a place of residency. 

That's the landlord's right because it affects his business if someone gets hurt or killed

[240 is Back]

see, strict consititionalists would probably say "NO NO NO, you CANNOT just RESTRICT certain amendments because you disagree with them!"

We've had that argument here many times.  it's a tough one.  Imagine if you rented a property to someone, and they chose to wear Nazi stuff and have hitler dolls and hold "legal" rallies on the property.  You'd want them OUT, even if that violated their 1st amendment rights.  On the other hand, if your landlord just decided out of the blue "no guns on this property, or you have to move", suddenly most of us wouldn't support the ability to strip away the 2nd amendment. 

Tricky one.

[headhuntersix]

"Shall not be infringed"...as long as you have a permit....have at it.

240 her second law appears to be ok. State law is the final law....you can't decide to make the law worse...as I read it. I have no problem with that.

[Archer77]

That's the landlord's right because it affects his business if someone gets hurt or killed

Its someone's home and they still have the right to privacy.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Its someone's home and they still have the right to privacy.

If you have a landlord, you don't own the property....you rent.  The owner has the right to decide what he or she wants on their property....a renter doesn't

[Archer77]

If you have a landlord, you don't own the property....you rent.  The owner has the right to decide what he or she wants on their property....a renter doesn't

Its your personal domicile.   We aren't even talking about the same thing.  Youre saying landlords have the right to ban handguns which at least in Michigan isnt up for dispute.  Im arguing that tenants should have the right to legally own a hand gun. 

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Its your personal domicile.   We aren't even talking about the same thing.  Youre saying landlords have the right to ban handguns which at least in Michigan isnt up for dispute.  Im arguing that tenants should have the right to legally own a hand gun.