Jan Brewer Vetoes Third Gun-Related Bill

Categories: I'm Only a Bill
tara-tm9.jpg
Gale82


Governor Jan Brewer has now acted on all six gun-related bills passed by the Legislature this session -- and vetoed half of them.

Earlier this week, Brewer vetoed two of the bills, one that would have allowed guns in more public buildings and another that would have created more restrictions against a city trying to make its own gun regulations. On Wednesday, Brewer vetoed a third gun-related bill, which would have made the act of trying to take someone's gun from them a crime of felony aggravated assault.

See also:
-Jan Brewer Vetoes Two Pro-Gun Bills

In her veto letter, Brewer said, "Current law already provides appropriate penalties for the conduct described in this legislation."

Grabbing a police officer's gun is considered felony aggravated assault under current law, but that doesn't apply to any other firearm carrier.

HB 2339 would have allowed concealed carry permit-holders to take their weapon inside any public establishment, excluding buildings with security guards that screen everyone for weapons, as well as educational institutions.

Brewer pointed out that she vetoed similar legislation in 2011 and 2012, and lawmakers didn't bother to correct the issues that Brewer found with those bills before passing this year's version.

The other one Brewer vetoed was House Bill 2517, created specific penalties for violations of state law that includes prohibitions on counties and cities making their own gun regulations, like the City of Phoenix-sponsored gun-buyback programs that were outlawed last year.

In Brewer's veto letter, she said courts can already deal with this issue and can probably deal with the issue better, with consideration to the facts of a case. She also was "troubled" with a provision that called for the firing of anyone involved in violating that law.

Those three bills might not seem like traditional "pro-gun" bills, but a quick search of right-wing opinion websites shows some people are upset with Brewer's vetoes.

Meanwhile, she signed three gun bills into law. One prevents police from carrying a firearm while they're consuming alcohol at any licensed liquor establishment, another lowers the concealed-carry weapon age to 19 (from 21) for military personnel, and the other essentially legalizes backyard shooting, as long as the person isn't a "nuisance" and lives at least a quarter-mile away from the nearest building or has the building owner's permission, plus some other stipulations.

Got a tip? Send it to: Matthew Hendley.

Follow Valley Fever on Twitter at @ValleyFeverPHX.
Follow Matthew Hendley at @MatthewHendley.


My Voice Nation Help
32 comments
shadeaux
shadeaux

The problem is that we've reached such a "saturation point" as far as the number of guns in America that I don't think we can legislate our way out of the kind of situations we seek to prevent. 


Maybe in a couple of more generations, the Wild West, gun in every pot attitude will change enough to accomplish what sane people want but, until that attitude changes.............?

johnlancaster85035
johnlancaster85035

"DON"T BE FOOLED"..........By these laws,that were just meant to make the Republican Governor "look good" in preparation for the next election.Kinda make you feel obligated to vote Republican.does it?That s what it is supposed to do.('The Carrot and Stick theory")

trentr9
trentr9

I would have vetoed all six.  Why does the legislature think we need all these new gun laws when our education system has been at or near the bottom for decades?

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

You see, Brewer answers to no one since she decided not to run for re-election as guv. But this has got to really piss off all the gun nuts. Well, good I say! Just imagine alcohol-fueled shootouts in bars. Shots going wild as a Golden Corral diner tries to take out someone attempting to rob the place. Or more dueling in Wal-Marts and 7-Elevens. Sanity prevailed this time.

gtnoriega554
gtnoriega554

@shadeaux Many folks enjoy helping to perpetuate the "Wild West" mentality.  Perhaps we enjoy living out our delusions.

100percentCLETUS
100percentCLETUS

@shadeaux The attitudes will change when the "majority" realizes that law abiding nonwhites are also carrying in the name of the 2nd Amendment, self-defense and "protection". Combined with their political differences, it will surely scare the heck out of them. Knowing that was their bad mistake to pass half of those gun bills. The 2nd Amendment is not limited to a single race nor a party preference. Unless one of those cretins in the right wing, tries to implement racial gun carrying preferences. That would be woefully unconstitutional and rife for litigation. As well as exposing racism in their policy making. That will be a blow to their party. As the party cannot survive on racism in the national spotlight. Just locally, perhaps only within Maricopa County.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@shadeaux  

Comparing those of us who carry in the 21st century to the "Wild West" just shows that your perception of the issue is based too heavily upon what you've seen in movies and on TV.

As long as there are violent criminals to threaten our families, and we don't have police officers within sight at all times to stop them, there will continue to be a demand for self-defense weapons.   Does that really seem unreasonable?

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@johnlancaster85035  

Seriously?  They were passed by a hell of a lot more Republicans than the one lame duck who vetoed them.  How is that supposed to change anybody's opinion of the party?

They were actually proposed in order to get them through before a Democrat is elected to replace her, because she's been such an embarrassment for so long.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@trentr9  

Our education system is not near the bottom, except in spending per student and performance in reading of 4th graders, many of whom are still learning English.

How is that related to the rights of the citizens to defend themselves from criminals, and why do you believe that the police should be allowed to drink while armed?

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@eric.nelson745  

Actually, none that she vetoed was really very exciting.

None of these bills would have allowed guns in places where they're not already found.

The closest is the one that would have made it legal for people who've undergone an FBI background check to carry into buildings where gang members and other criminals can already freely carry, but that's it.


 

NWEng
NWEng

@eric.nelson745 I'm still trying to understand what the big gun push is all about in the first place.  As one of those "law abiding citizens", I've had no problems buying/selling/carrying whatsoever.  Clearly, there are problems with our system somewhere, if someone can take a weapon to a public event or location and begin to indiscriminately fire and kill innocent bystanders.  However, I believe the answer to lie between "no guns" and "more guns" and not at either extreme.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@100percentCLETUS @shadeaux 

Wow.  We rarely see such an ignorant and openly bigoted post.

In the first place, those of us who carry are not any more likely to be racist than those who do not.  Clearly you've never spent much time around shooters.


In the second place, the people that we worry about aren't the ones who carry legally.  It's those who carry illegally, and none of these laws make life particularly easier for them.  Maybe you're not clear on what "concealed" carry means, but the idea is that nobody knows about it, which means that lawbreakers can carry just about wherever they want, unless there are metal detectors or searches.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @eric.nelson745 

.

Gun laws disproportionately impact the ability of honest citizens to defend themselves, with very little impact on criminals or the insane, since they can simply choose to ignore them.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @valleynative 

Sure, and, as I say, the one that I think needs to be the point of address is not easy.

It's easier to just put more and more restrictions on legal gun purchases, and liberal politicians love to do so, in order to give the impression that they're "doing something", but honest gun owners are going to continue to push back, because we bear the weight of such legislation, while the bad guys laugh and buy on the black market.

NWEng
NWEng

@valleynative @NWEngI should clarify there are many issues involved, I only used one for the purposes of discussion.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @valleynative 

No, I saw that.  But you see that if there is another pathway, you haven't identified the root, right?


NWEng
NWEng

@valleynative @NWEngYou also missed this "(Realizing that not all weapons that are used in crimes are obtained in this fashion.)"...

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng  

I overlooked your root cause analysis.

You've focused on the fact that bad guys can buy guns openly as the root cause, but it's not.  

They can also buy guns on the black market, so this isn't really a "root".  The root cause is that there are too many bad guys running around undetected.  That's NOT an easy problem to solve, but the true root.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @valleynative@eric.nelson745 

No, I'm really not.  I think you're overlooking the impact to the "good guys" of attempts to make it more difficult for "bad guys" to buy guns (rather than making it more difficult for "bad guys" to be wandering around loose, at all).

If you take away my right to conduct private commercial transactions without the involvement of the federal government, you've made the process much more difficult, much more expensive, and much more intrusive into my privacy, while at the same time increasing the power of the federal government over the lives of the citizens.

And still, without addressing the fact that the bad guys can just buy their firearms in back-alleys, like they buy their drugs.   Disproportionate impact on the honest citizen.

 

NWEng
NWEng

@valleynative @NWEng@eric.nelson745
You're confusing the two sides of this issue, I haven't mentioned anything about taking anyone's lawfully obtained and owned weapon, just make it more difficult for someone who shouldn't have one from getting one.  It should be A LOT harder than just answering a Craigslist ad.  (Realizing that not all weapons that are used in crimes are obtained in this fashion.)


One of my duties as a network engineer is to determine root cause for an issue and fix it so it doesn't happen again, and I don't see that happening here.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @valleynative@eric.nelson745 

My view is that the problem isn't that it's too easy to obtain a particular type of tool, but rather that too many people are running around loose who are dangerous maniacs.

Removing their primary choice of tool doesn't really address that problem at all, but it does make it much more difficult for us to defend ourselves against them, while at the same time, making citizens more and more dependent upon the government to provide the illusion of safety.  

NWEng
NWEng

@valleynative @NWEng@eric.nelson745 Yes, you can do that too.  My particular point is how easy it is for anyone to lay down cash in and walk out with a deadly weapon with little to no questions asked except "do you have the cash".  I don't think anyone is addressing the real problem, we're just dealing with the symptoms in a reactionary fashion.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @valleynative@eric.nelson745 

Why go to a gun show?  Just answer an ad in the newspaper.  There's really nothing special about gun shows.

Have you noticed that even though we don't allow "meth shows", people still seem to have no trouble at all finding meth to buy, if they're willing to break the law and to associate with others who do?

 

NWEng
NWEng

@valleynative @NWEng@eric.nelson745Maybe one of the things we should evaluate is  how prohibited possessors are getting their weapons in the first place.  (I know that if I wanted to get a weapon without a whole lot of questions, I'd go down to the gun show and buy something from one of the private sellers walking around.)  I'm not interested in taking anyone's lawfully owned weapons; but, I'd certainly like to see it infinitely more difficult for someone who shouldn't have one from getting one, rather than deal with it afterward.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@NWEng @valleynative@eric.nelson745 

There's a "gun free zone" sign on college campuses.  That means that a woman who respects the law can't have a handgun in her purse as she walks to the parking lot at night, but that same sign has no impact on the rapist hiding behind that van.


Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...