| Author | Post |
|---|
Dahwg
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
This just in from AZCDL:
This morning (6/25/09) the House Judiciary Committee passed both SB 1113 (Restaurant Carry) and SB 1243 (Defensive Display) out of committee.
SB 1113, the Restaurant Carry bill, passed by a vote of 6 to 2. It was amended in committee. The following summarizes key provisions in the current version of the bill:
- "Open carry" is not allowed. The firearm must be concealed.
- Only individuals with CCW permits may carry a concealed firearm where alcohol is served.
- The individual legally carrying the firearm may not consume alcohol.
- The requirement that the establishment serve food has been removed.
- The penalty for violating the law is a class 3 misdemeanor.
- Establishments may prohibit firearms by posting a sign in a specified location.
- It is an "affirmative defense" if the person violating the law "was not informed of the notice," the sign had "fallen down," the person is not a resident of Arizona, or the posted sign has not been up for 30 days.
- However, lack of knowledge (by Arizona residents only) that firearms are prohibited in establishments serving alcohol is no longer a valid defense.
SB 1243, the AzCDL-requested bill that clarifies when a defensive display is justified, passed by a vote of 5 to 3.
|
AZkopper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 09:33 pm |
|
I'm glad they dropped the food service requirement, but still mystified over the no OC requirement.
How is the server supposed to know if you are armed or not, since you are required to CC. At least if you were required to OC, the servers would know....
oh well, another law for another day...
|
Crossfire Jedi
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:31 am |
|
| I don't understand that either...makes no sese at all.
|
Dahwg
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 437 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:35 am |
|
| I figure when the streets don't run red with blood, they'll drop the requirement for it to be concealed. I can't see how it does anything except keep the sheep from freaking.
|
azcdlfred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 171 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:00 pm |
|
AZkopper wrote: still mystified over the no OC requirement.
The original bill did not have the concealed carry or CCW permit-only (less than 2% of the population) requirements. Many concessions were made along the way (it's an NRA backed bill - 'nuff said) to get most of the deep-pocket opponents to go "neutral" on it.
Fred
|
T Vance
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:25 am |
|
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_in_bars
|
crisisweasel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Marana, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 09:58 am |
|
Do we know when it is likely for Brewer to sign or not sign? Like what kind of time frame is usually involved? Days? Weeks? Months?
|
azcdlfred
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 171 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
crisisweasel wrote: Do we know when it is likely for Brewer to sign or not sign? Like what kind of time frame is usually involved? Days? Weeks? Months?
The Governor has 10 work days after the session ends to make up her mind to veto the bill. She can sign it before then. If she ignores and does not veto, it will become law about 90 days later http://www.azleg.gov/alisPDFs/hbillaw.pdf .
These bills (SB 1168, SB 1113, SB 1243 and SB 1449) stand a godd chance of not being vetoed.
Fred
|
Current time is 11:41 am | |
|
