AZ gun bill vetoed - campus

Glenn E. Meyer · April 19, 2011, 01:49 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53400.html

Now, I haven't followed the AZ debate. The story indicates the initial bill was to allow carry on campus. But it was modified only to allow guns in cars and parking lots?

While that is useful, it doesn't give much protection in buildings. It does allow you have a gun when you drive to and fro of the college location.

Anyone expert on this? The TX bills are caught in some limbo for the moment.

cwok · April 19, 2011, 02:26 PM

... a quick review of an on-line article from Christinan Science Monitor indicated that the governor vetoed the bill because she felt the language/phrasing was not clear.

Apparently, the bill would have allowed CCW, by people authorized to carry in other locations, in Public Areas of state college campuses.
Apparently the bill was intended to allow the college to forbid CCW in classrooms, but not walkways/parking lots.

Obviously there could be questions about:
Stadiums
Theather (espeically if leased for a non-school event)
Rest rooms etc.

Personal opinion: I don't want a badly written law that leaves me open to accidently carrying where it is illegal.
It may have been a perfectly logical decison on her part - she tends to support the 2d Amendment.
.

parrothead2581 · April 19, 2011, 07:00 PM

She also noted concern that it could have been interpreted to apply to K-12 schools as well as colleges.

alloy · April 19, 2011, 07:42 PM

Governor Brewer on last night's news said she'd be happy to sign something into law if it's written concisely. She called that particular bill's language "sloppy".

Mirroring cwok's and Parrothead's post.

Davey · April 19, 2011, 09:19 PM

So if the sponsors of the bill want to clean up the supposedly sloppy language will they have to start from scratch and push it through the house and senate all over again? Or can they take some shortcuts?

Al Norris · April 19, 2011, 10:44 PM

I suspect they would have to start from Scratch, Davey.

As I understand it, the Bill listed "Public Right of Way" as the place(s) where it would be lawful to carry. But the Bill didn't define what a "Public Right of Way" was... I sure wouldn't want to leave THAT to the discretion of the courts, would you?

Not all "good" gun laws are actually good. Kudu's to Gov. Brewer on this one.

wally626 · April 20, 2011, 06:27 AM

In VA the Governor can amend bills and send them back to the Legislature. Usually this is done to clean up sloppy language, keeps bills with minor flaws from having to start over. Sounded like the AZ bill was pretty poor by the time it got out of the legislature anyway. We had a parking lot bill get so weasel worded that it would not have made any difference for 90% of the people it was meant to help. Died in the Senate special "gun bill death" committee anyway if I remember right. Elections in the Fall need to straighten out our Senate.

alloy · April 20, 2011, 06:57 AM

Quote:

She claimed that the law could be misconstrued to include K-12 schools, where Federal law prohibits firearms.

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/...lytocom=418284

She likely has had enough of legal wrangling the Federals on her bill passages over the last two years. Sounds like good governance to keep the matter away from that particular jackpot right now...

Maybe next time, will be better.

armoredman · April 20, 2011, 09:38 AM

The bill was correct when it started, but some weak knees changed it to "right of way"...
I tend to agree with her decision. Her record speaks for her feelings about Second Amendment issues.

danez71 · April 20, 2011, 09:04 PM

Another AZ resident here....

Basically what ther others said. The key point of contention was "right of way(s)" language was left open for interpretation.

It was watered down to get the votes but got to the point of clarity being diluted as well.

Bummer that it was vetoed but ultimately I think it was vetoed for the right reason.

chadstrickland · April 20, 2011, 09:31 PM

I for one am surprised this isn't being met with more resistance, just having come from raising hell at the brady campaign thing..I figured those people would have gotten there panties in a big wad over carrying a gun on campus.....

April 19, 2011, 01:49 PM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	AZ gun bill vetoed - campus http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53400.html Now, I haven't followed the AZ debate. The story indicates the initial bill was to allow carry on campus. But it was modified only to allow guns in cars and parking lots? While that is useful, it doesn't give much protection in buildings. It does allow you have a gun when you drive to and fro of the college location. Anyone expert on this? The TX bills are caught in some limbo for the moment. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 19, 2011, 02:26 PM	#2
cwok Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2010 Posts: 316	Republican Gov Jan Brewer vetod the bill .... ... a quick review of an on-line article from Christinan Science Monitor indicated that the governor vetoed the bill because she felt the language/phrasing was not clear. Apparently, the bill would have allowed CCW, by people authorized to carry in other locations, in Public Areas of state college campuses. Apparently the bill was intended to allow the college to forbid CCW in classrooms, but not walkways/parking lots. Obviously there could be questions about: Stadiums Theather (espeically if leased for a non-school event) Rest rooms etc. Personal opinion: I don't want a badly written law that leaves me open to accidently carrying where it is illegal. It may have been a perfectly logical decison on her part - she tends to support the 2d Amendment. .

April 19, 2011, 07:00 PM	#3
parrothead2581 Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 1,268	She also noted concern that it could have been interpreted to apply to K-12 schools as well as colleges. __________________ But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever. Psalm 52:8

April 20, 2011, 09:31 PM	#11
chadstrickland Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2011 Location: alabama Posts: 537	I for one am surprised this isn't being met with more resistance, just having come from raising hell at the brady campaign thing..I figured those people would have gotten there panties in a big wad over carrying a gun on campus..... __________________ Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition..

April 19, 2011, 09:19 PM	#5
Davey Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2010 Location: Not far enough from Chicago Posts: 394	So if the sponsors of the bill want to clean up the supposedly sloppy language will they have to start from scratch and push it through the house and senate all over again? Or can they take some shortcuts?

April 19, 2011, 10:44 PM	#6
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	I suspect they would have to start from Scratch, Davey. As I understand it, the Bill listed "Public Right of Way" as the place(s) where it would be lawful to carry. But the Bill didn't define what a "Public Right of Way" was... I sure wouldn't want to leave THAT to the discretion of the courts, would you? Not all "good" gun laws are actually good. Kudu's to Gov. Brewer on this one.

April 20, 2011, 06:27 AM	#7
wally626 Senior Member Join Date: July 31, 2009 Posts: 642	In VA the Governor can amend bills and send them back to the Legislature. Usually this is done to clean up sloppy language, keeps bills with minor flaws from having to start over. Sounded like the AZ bill was pretty poor by the time it got out of the legislature anyway. We had a parking lot bill get so weasel worded that it would not have made any difference for 90% of the people it was meant to help. Died in the Senate special "gun bill death" committee anyway if I remember right. Elections in the Fall need to straighten out our Senate.

April 20, 2011, 09:38 AM	#9
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	The bill was correct when it started, but some weak knees changed it to "right of way"... I tend to agree with her decision. Her record speaks for her feelings about Second Amendment issues.

April 20, 2011, 09:04 PM	#10
danez71 Senior Member Join Date: June 2, 2009 Posts: 438	Another AZ resident here.... Basically what ther others said. The key point of contention was "right of way(s)" language was left open for interpretation. It was watered down to get the votes but got to the point of clarity being diluted as well. Bummer that it was vetoed but ultimately I think it was vetoed for the right reason.