| Author | Post |
|---|
azlobo73
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:43 pm |
|
I updated my post a bit more to clarify a little. Yes if I interpret the law correctly, and I thing I am, then they are illegally prohibiting firearms as per state law. They *could* limit to CCW, but not prohibit them, and can only limit firearms using the legally prescribed wording in the statute (and certainly not by redefining both the meaning and the spelling of words associated with firearms, which is the entire point of the statute's preciseness, if I had to guess).
Their web site seems to indicate that they *can* prohibit guns *because* they're a city. In fact the exact opposite appears to be case if I'm understanding state law correctly. I'm no lawyer but it would seem to be in line with the concept of preemption.
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:47 pm by azlobo73
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:44 pm |
|
With the original photo attached, as well as my previous (unanswered) email included, this just went off to the Scottsdale PD to the Sgt. Clark in the New Times article (who is listed on the Scottsdale PD website as the 'Public Information Supervisor.'
Good morning Mr. Clark,
I have been following the case of the young man who had been in some hot water regarding the airsoft rifle incident in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. In a recent article published by the New Times I noticed your name came up in a story about that incident and one line specifically caught my attention.
"Clark tells us that a sign in the park warns that Airsoft rifles are not permitted, though he says some folks debate the validity of that ordinance."
It would sound like you might be aware of the issues that I have outlined below in an email to the Preserve administration two months ago, but to which I have never received any response other than "You should hear back from us shortly" from Ruthie Carll, their Executive Director.
As you are surely aware, Arizona statute 13-3108 applies here yet is being ignored almost entirely by the preserve.
I have attached a photo of an example of the park signage, which matches the 'Rules' section of their website as well (http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/rules_regs.html) both in violation of the law.
Having not received any response or resolution from the park itself I am seeking any information you might be able to provide regarding applicability of Arizona law to the park, what exception(s) they may think or know applies to them, and what the official Police response/take would be on this situation.
As I stated in my previous email to Ruthie Carll, I am a law-abiding citizen and I'm not exactly a fan of having to deal with those who are not, or those who think they can impose their political views upon the masses regardless of the law just to be able to go hiking on a nearby trail.
I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter and very much look forward to any light you can shed on the issue.
Best Regards,
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:46 pm |
|
azlobo73 wrote: I updated my post a bit more to clarify a little. Yes if they are illegally prohibiting firearms as per state law. They *could* limit to CCW, but not prohibit them, and can only limit firearms using the legally prescribed wording in the statute (and certainly not by redefining both the meaning and the spelling of words associated with firearms, which is the entire point of the statute's preciseness, if I had to guess).
Their web site seems to indicate that they *can* prohibit guns *because* they're a city. In fact the exact opposite appears to be case if I'm understanding state law correctly. I'm no lawyer but it would seem to be in line with the concept of preemption.
I came to the same conclusions as you, so hopefully we're both dead-on in our interpretation.
One thing of note.. I haven't looked at the wording of it recently, but the way it all apeared the last time I read through it fully it sounds like they can indeed limit to CCW permit HOLDERS, but not necessarily limit one to that mode of carry. IE: Open carry all day long as long as you do have a valid/current CCW permit as well.
|
azlobo73
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:54 pm |
|
Heh, yeah that does indeed seem to be the case, although they (law enforcement) can still harass a OC'er to verify that they have a CCW permit, and possibly pull out the "disorderly" card if some frightened hiker(s) say they felt "threatened"...
Edited to add: But then they moved to AZ right so its time they realize they ain't in Cali or NYC anymore...
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:56 pm by azlobo73
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:55 pm |
|
azlobo73 wrote: Heh, yeah that does indeed seem to be the case, although they (law enforcement) can still harass a OC'er to verify that they have a CCW permit, and possibly pull out the "disorderly" card if some frightened hiker(s) say they felt "threatened"...
They can then start pulling lawyers out of their asses, cause that's where I'll be sending them 
|
azlobo73
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:56 pm |
|
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 08:09 pm |
|
Just got a response from the Preserve folks:
"The staff person that I had originally contact about this was part of the early retirement package with the City. Here is the first response from the new leadership. If you don’t hear from me soon – please continue to contact me!"
The 'first response' she is referring to is this from Bill Murphy of the City of Scottsdale:
"I am still working on this information. I am not that clear on the ordinance and will ask for our legal group to comment. I want to make sure our language is the same as we have in parks."
Makes sense since when I sent my followup I did get a bounce from one of the addresses for Bob Cafarella.
Last edited on Fri Oct 30th, 2009 08:11 pm by Thoreau
|
azlobo
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
I look forward to hearing whether their legal folks consider Scottsdale within the bounds of Arizona statute 13-3108 and preemption. I can't imagine them trying to argue that the current signage is in any way kosher...
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 08:23 pm |
|
Well, at this point I am assuming that the signage has NOT changed. I'd bet large sums of money that I'm right, but I suppose it's possible that changes have happened since that photo on page 1 was taken.
Need to go on a scouting mission and get some new photos around the area...
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 03:13 pm |
|
Can't say I expected much different from the local PD for obvious reasons:
"Thank you for your concern on this matter. The police department will enforce the laws that pertain to the park and any given situation where such laws are broken. We are not involved in the review or crafting of laws, that would fall under the duties of the legislative branch of the entity that has the laws on their books.
Sgt. Mark Clark"
Nothing new from the Preserve folks since Friday yet.
|
Overtaxed
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 131 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 12:15 pm |
|
I was in Grand Central Station one evening, and caught the tail end of a conversation between a police officer and some kids dressed in camo with pretty realistic airsoft guns slung over their shoulders.
Nothing more severe than an admonition to keep their fingers off the triggers!Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 12:15 pm by Overtaxed
|
Current time is 01:50 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
