|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GWbiker Regular Member 
|
......appears to be well on it's way to the Governor....... http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/296211.php |
|||||||||
|
jmelvin Founder's Club Member
|
Better than nothing I suppose. I'm surprised Arizona is taking the path of some of the northeastern states. It's funny to read the comments folk put down on the comment section associated with the article. It's like people don't even realize that you can openly carry a firearm without a CCW (granted unloaded) in restaurants that serve alcohol in the state immediately to the west and loaded in every state surrounding Arizona, except for New Mexico. *Edited to add: I've been going over this in my head thinking of the gun laws of various states and I cannot think of another state that allows for open carry (licensed or unlicensed) that then turns around and requires that a person carry only concealed in places serving alcohol. Even Ohio's proposed legislation allows for either type of carry, although carry will be restricted to CHL holders only unless the legislation is fixed. Hopefully next legislative session the legislators will make this right. Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 02:13 pm by jmelvin |
|||||||||
|
Thoreau Regular Member
|
I do love some of the 'logic' many people use to hurl their anti-gun mindset around. Oh well, stupid people make me look smarter =) In the meantime, I do hope this gets signed in and quickly. After getting my CCW permit earlier this year I have found that eating out is a pain in the ass, moreso than it need be. Aside from the fact that I am unarmed for no reason other than to munch on some food, I also HATE leaving a weapon in my car (and this isn't bragging, but being a BMW, it already shouts 'break into me and steal my stuff' loudly enough on its own. It doesn't need to actually provide goodies for would-be thieves.) Anywho, hurry up and sign it Brewer! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
Used to be a time when you could walk into most any bar/restaurant ... unbuckle your gun belt 'n hand it to the barkeep. Dunno why that went away (most places). It prevented your firearm from being left unattended... Nobody had problems 'til the California influence. |
|||||||||
|
AZkopper Regular Member 
|
One step at a time people, one step at a time. First, lets get this passed. Then work on loosening the restrictions. Everything in baby steps, to help 'normalize' it. The anti's have been using this tactic for years, it's about time we used it. |
|||||||||
|
AZkopper Regular Member
|
Here's the real funny part: As written, those who are armed cannot consume. Those who are armed must have a CWP, and most likely will be conceal carrying. There will be no way for servers to know if they are serving an armed person or not. If the law allowed OC, or demanded OC in such places, it would at least be internally consistant. |
|||||||||
|
JesseL Regular Member 
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Used to be a time when you could walk into most any bar/restaurant ... unbuckle your gun belt 'n hand it to the barkeep. Dunno why that went away (most places). Hardly anybody carries on a separate gun belt anymore either. Makes it hard to hand the whole thing over to the barkeep when you risk dropping your pants  |
|||||||||
|
GWbiker Regular Member
|
AZkopper wrote: Here's the real funny part: As written, those who are armed cannot consume. Those who are armed must have a CWP, and most likely will be conceal carrying. There will be no way for servers to know if they are serving an armed person or not. If the law allowed OC, or demanded OC in such places, it would at least be internally consistant. +1. OC would be easiest way to determine who gets the booze, but anti's claim OC would cause panic among other patrons. Which is odd, since I've OC in dozens of restaurants/buffets/fast food joints in and around Tucson without alarming staff or customers. I hope some restaurants do post a sign indicating "no weapons". Will make it easier for me to hand out "no guns-no$$" cards....  |
|||||||||
|
crisisweasel Regular Member 
|
AZkopper wrote: Here's the real funny part: As written, those who are armed cannot consume. Those who are armed must have a CWP, and most likely will be conceal carrying. There will be no way for servers to know if they are serving an armed person or not. If the law allowed OC, or demanded OC in such places, it would at least be internally consistant. You know, I was against this for basic rights reasons, but I hadn't even thought of that. What a boneheaded move! I wonder if this came up in debate. |
|||||||||
|
lostone1413 Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Used to be a time when you could walk into most any bar/restaurant ... unbuckle your gun belt 'n hand it to the barkeep. Dunno why that went away (most places). Yep To me with the CA. influnce the AZ politicans seem to be getting less and less pro gun |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
Quite frankly it is disgusting how they water down our rights. One set of laws for permit holders another set for non-permit holders. It is becoming awfully complicated to exercise a simple constitutional right! |
|||||||||
|
jmelvin Founder's Club Member
|
What is sad is how this bill was changed to be as restrictive as it is now. The Restaurant Association and its member have every right as business managers to ban firearms carry in their respective restaurants whether the bill limits carry to all or some. Unfortunately the legislature is chosing to give them cover for their anti-self defense ideals. |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
It may not be perfect(yet), but trying to put a positive spin on it, at least we are moving in the right direction. I'm willing to take what I can get now and then we can add to it later. Rights were taken away little by little, that may be the only way we can get them back. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
I'm such an agitator... If anybody wanted to notice... Even if this law never passes, you can still carry concealed in a place that serves alcohol... Always could. Laws to the contrary are unenforceable. Because, duh, it's concealed. OMG, I advocate breaking the law! Sue me! Moderate me! Lock my ass up! You can say 'better than nothing,' but it's still not good enough to be something. One can also argue... if one carries concealed, how can you know if they should be served or not? Note: Virginia. You HAVE to OC in a booze serving establishment there, such that it may be noted if you may be served or not. Having to conceal in an establishment that serves alcohol destroys the argument that it keeps carriers from drinking, because there is no way to tell! It's concealed! As a faux pro-gun law, it really changes nothing. Those who are willing to defy government to seize their rights back, have been able to concealed carry anywhere, anytime they want... It's concealed, so there is no way to tell! And, as usual, you can still get drunk at home with al your guns, and not kill anyone... Just like when you're sober.... |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
I'll respectfully disagree. It's not perfect, but it is something. And if this passes, there will be a difference. Those CCW'ers that are inclined to not break the law can now carry and protect themselves and their families in another location. That is a difference. Is it perfect or is it what I wish it were? No, but it is another step. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
I think you can even find a post or two around here where I said the same thing, but I've become impatient I suppose. I'm sick of giving up something real so others can have a totally illogical 'feeling.' Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 05:29 am by ixtow |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
I totally agree with you there, it is completely illogical. Too bad politicians are anything but logical. |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
The bill is in the Senate now. If you go to NRA-ILA.org you can look up SB 1113 under Arizona and it lists all the Senators. Email and call them and tell them to add an amendment to restore the original language. We cannot have one tier of laws for open carriers and one for those that have a permit to conceal! |
|||||||||
|
jmelvin Founder's Club Member
|
Good suggestion Count! Arizonans you can still do something about this! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Just enter any bar and pull a 'Jedi' on the barkeep. "You do not see a gun. There's no gun here. I am free to imbibe... " Seriously... how many (especially woman) who CC more so than men in AZ... have complied with this already? How many people who CC have ever complied at all? Then... there certain states where even a 'CC" permit is rarer than a Blue Unicorn... and women (especially) will CC somethin' for their own defense... regardless of what a bunch'a milque-toast, candyassed, hoplophobic control freaks in the gummint (State or local) decree otherwise. This is just 'something on paper'... whereas the actual dynamic has been something 'people do' anyway for years. 'Think politicians are cognizant of actualities? Not on this planet. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Just enter any bar and pull a 'Jedi' on the barkeep. "You do not see a gun. There's no gun here. I am free to imbibe... " 1) I am quite sure that politicians are cognizant, they just have other plans... 2) I've never met a woman who DIDN'T carry a concealed weapon of some kind. They, more than most, understand the need to bear arms. They simply choose to carry an ineffective weapon to 'feel' safe instead of 'be' safe. "steak knife in the purse" being the most common useless 'feel good' weapon I've found them to have. |
|||||||||
|
TOF Regular Member 
|
So what are the rules in your location Count. It is not necessary to go through the NRA to address your Senators or Congress person, state or national. The following link gets you to State Legislators. Click on Senate or House then click on members and you will have contact data for all members. http://www.azleg.gov/ Write them now as the votes are coming up very soon. I am not going to muddy the waters I have asked all of them to support the pertinent bills. If they must compromise a little till next year I can live with it. I am convinced we are making progress in Arizona. We are certainly doing better than many states. Stay safe |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
SB1113 was just defeated in the Senate vote, but apparently can be reconsidered again for another vote. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Well... that sucks! Kommiefornian influence strikes again.  |
|||||||||
|
ccwinstructor Centurion Member
|
Notso wrote: SB1113 was just defeated in the Senate vote, but apparently can be reconsidered again for another vote. Nasty. Last year it passed with nearly 2/3rds of the vote! |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
The reasons the anti's gave was just bizarre. One said 'My cousin was in a fight in a bar and got shot and killed - I vote no'. That had a lot to do with this. Some people have no ability to think logically. |
|||||||||
|
Crossfire Jedi Regular Member 
|
The Senate continues with its accelerated schedule and voted on SB 1113 (Restaurant Carry) and SB 1243 (Defensive Display) in today's (June 15, 2009) Third Read after passing them out of the Senate Committee of the Whole (COW) just last Friday (June 12, 2009). Unfortunately, SB 1113, which limited the carrying of concealed weapons in certain restaurants serving alcohol to CCW permit holders, providing signs are not posted forbidding firearms and the person possessing the firearm does not consume alcohol, failed by a tie vote of 14-14 with two Senators not voting. One of the Senators not voting was Republican Senator John Nelson, a supporter of SB 1113, who was unable to be at this session due to a family emergency. Unfortunately, a number of Senators who indicated to AzCDL that they supported SB 1113 voted against it on the Senate Floor. However, there is still hope for SB 1113. Senator Harper, the sponsor of SB 1113, seeing how the vote was going, switched his vote to "Nay" to create the tie vote. This will enable Senator Harper to ask for a reconsideration vote so that SB 1113 can be voted on again in an upcoming Third Read, probably tomorrow, June 16, 2009. You can see how each Senator voted here: http://tinyurl.com/SB1113Senate3rd . SB 1243, the AzCDL-requested bill that clarifies when a defensive display is justified, sailed through today's Senate Third Read by a vote of 21-7 with 2 not voting. Vote details are here: http://tinyurl.com/SB1243Senate3rd . From here, SB 1243 will be transmitted to the House where the process starts all over again. Stay tuned! When critical legislation moves, we will notify you via these Alerts. These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today! AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
Notso wrote: The reasons the anti's gave was just bizarre. One said 'My cousin was in a fight in a bar and got shot and killed - I vote no'. That had a lot to do with this. Some people have no ability to think logically. Why was no one there to debunk it? If possessing a gun meant that a person was in a violent state of mind, there would be millions of 'gun deaths' every day. The population of the country would be cut in half by the end of the week. |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
As the vote was being taken, each Senator could speak for or against the bill. I think the time for debate was over. I wanted to just reach out and slap someone everytime I heard an emotional plea to not pass that bill. Another Senator just kept saying that 'guns and alcohol don't mix' regardless of the fact that gun carriers won't be allowed to drink. Grrrrr, just pisses me off. I can imagine what the sponsors of the bill felt like. |
|||||||||
|
TOF Regular Member
|
It's not over yet. We have some good people working for passage. Senator Harper will if possible have his ducks lined up better when he calls for reconsideration. I am quite certain they will be talking to some of the nay votes in an attempt to shift the vote our way. |
|||||||||
|
AZkopper Regular Member
|
Thank God my new Senator, Steven Pierce, voted Yes. I hope the next vote goes better. |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
SB1113 passed out of the Senate today. Now, on to the House. I understand it will move quickly through there and to a vote. |
|||||||||
|
GWbiker Regular Member
|
Notso wrote: SB1113 passed out of the Senate today. Now, on to the House. I understand it will move quickly through there and to a vote. Vote was 18-10-2. The usual liberal minded suspects voted against SB1113. |
|||||||||
|
Dahwg Regular Member 
|
Notso wrote: SB1113 passed out of the Senate today. Now, on to the House. I understand it will move quickly through there and to a vote. The Arizona Red Star will be none too pleased about it. HA! Can't wait to read the letters to the Editor... WAAAAHHHH  |
|||||||||
|
chesphoto Regular Member
|
My Senator, Jim Waring voted to pass the bill. He has been great, constantly updating me on the votes. I just wrote to my representatives to ask them to support the two senate bills. I also wrote the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass the bill to allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed. I have my ccw permit, but I would like to have more law abiding citizens carrying. The more carrying, the safer I am. I have lived in Arizona since 1980 and have never contacted a state official. Now that have a gun, (12/08) I have become an activist! We have a real chance to get some great laws passed, but we need to be vocal. Contact you representatives now! |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
"So what are the rules in your location Count." TDF If a location derives more than 51% of the business from the sales of alcohol they have to post a 51% sign here in Texas. You can consume but you cannot be intoxicated. You can only carry concealed there's no open carry here. ( you could open carry your rifle into a bar ) but that wouldn't fly.... |
|||||||||
|
TOF Regular Member
|
It sounds like you could use a bit of improvement also. Are your legislators working on it? Do you still have dry counties? |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
Yes, we have dry counties. The prohibition is for a 51% establishment only. If you are not in one (such as a restaurant) you can sit at the bar carrying and drinking, but the definition of intoxication can be stretched if you make the cop mad.... |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
I believe SB1113 started out with a '51%' rule, but it was dropped and replaced with the 'onsite kitchen' wording. Not sure how they worked that. |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
I am so mad the NRA watered it down from the original version because they don't want to put up a good fight. It is absurd to create one tier of laws for open carriers and another tier of laws for concealed permit holders carrying concealed. I rather see this bill be killed and start over with guts. This is why I do not donate to the NRA anymore. |
|||||||||
|
TOF Regular Member
|
You can blame the NRA all you want but Arizona legislators are the ones with responsibility for making or repealing Arizona law. I can appreciate your concern for those of us in Arizona but believe you would be better served writing your Texas legislatures regarding lack of open carry in Texas. I lived there for a few years and some of the laws were a PITA. Like it or not it is sometimes necessary to compromise. I am pleased with how the majority of our legislators are handling gun issues and believe we will come out ahead this year. There will almost always be opposition and need for compromise at some level. Stay safe |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
I wish it were different also, but it is what it is. I'll take it for now, it's a (small)step in the right direction. Now we just need to get it passed in the House and signed by the Gov. and then on to 'Constitution Carry'. |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
TDF, I worked closely with TSRA and NRA ref. car carry. In fact I was given a "President's citation" by them after we passed that law. Despite our work and friendship (without mentioning names) I was told that if I bring up the issue of Open carry one more time we may no longer be friends... It looks like they want to play everything very cautiously and keep gun carrying a privilege, not a right, here in Texas. I know the NRA lobbyist for your area and her stance on this issue. Believe me the legislators will listen more to the lobbyists than you or me. Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 05:37 pm by Count |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
Open Carry in Texas will be tough. I grew up in Texas and understand the issues there. I suspect it will eventually take legal action to get OC there. |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
People like the idea! The legislators are the dummies! |
|||||||||
|
Armed4Life Regular Member
|
Can anyone explain to me how any restriction on carrying in places that serve alcohol (other than by the owners request) is NOT an impairment to the right to keep and bear arms? |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
May want to change the word impairment...hehe... Otherwise you are right.... |
|||||||||
|
Dahwg Regular Member
|
Armed4Life wrote: Can anyone explain to me how any restriction on carrying in places that serve alcohol (other than by the owners request) is NOT an impairment to the right to keep and bear arms? Either way it's an infringement, however the new law infringes less. It's not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Thing is SB1270, Constitutional Carry tackles this issue anyway. We should have pushed for SB1270 and ignored this one. SB1270 says that in spite of any laws on the books, you can carry anywhere if you have a CWP, exceptions are spelled out specifically. JUST FOUND OUT! SB1270 MOVING! http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=21200&forum_id=10&jump_to=455439 Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 08:49 pm by Dahwg |
|||||||||
|
pullnshoot25 Regular Member 
|
Notso wrote: Open Carry in Texas will be tough. I grew up in Texas and understand the issues there. I suspect it will eventually take legal action to get OC there. Out here in Cali, the anti-OC or curious people tell me "This isn't Texas" or ask "What is this, Texas?" when they see my gun. I always respond with "Actually, Texas doesn't have open carry," a response which has lit the fumes of quite a few police officers (they hate being called out on the law.) I think Texas should have open carry and I can't understand why it got banned in the first place. BRING IT BACK! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
pullnshoot25 wrote: Notso wrote:Open Carry in Texas will be tough. I grew up in Texas and understand the issues there. I suspect it will eventually take legal action to get OC there. Prob'ly was banned in 1867 with the passage of the 14th Amendment. That allowed former slaves to bear arms opr was part of the reconstruction set-up. 'Course Texas is so big... and the 'law' wasn't enforced (then) for the most part. Ranchers had their own 'armies' damn near. Arizona and New Mexico have always been OC, yet they'll refer to 'Texas'? People are ignorant. I mean it... they can't see past their own noses. Pedestrian xenophobia or somethin'. Maryland (forinstance) has a terminal case of that. I'm ashamed to have been born there. The state has become an embarrassment. The usual response of Kommiefornians seein' my piece is  It's hysterical. |
|||||||||
|
Crossfire Jedi Regular Member
|
off subject...but.. Sonora, yesterday I was at a Pawn shop and saw a revolver there that was incredible...huge, probably a foot long or more revolver...of course I thought of you! It was a .22LR but it was a beautiful gun...I should have taken a pic...definately something that the anti's would love to look at, lol. Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 10:24 pm by Crossfire Jedi |
|||||||||
|
ccwinstructor Centurion Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: pullnshoot25 wrote:Notso wrote:Open Carry in Texas will be tough. I grew up in Texas and understand the issues there. I suspect it will eventually take legal action to get OC there. Texas has had several Constitutions. The first, before the war between the states, guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, as it had been essential to win independence from Mexico. This stayed in effect until after the war, whereupon the carpetbagger government changed the Constitution to do away with it by saying you had the right but the legislature could regulate it (sound familiar). The carpetbaggers were unelected in 1872, I think (the carpetbagger governor had to be chased from the governors mansion by a group of armed citizens). Then a new Constitution was created. It went back halfway, guaranteeing the right to bear arms, but giving the legislature the right to regulate the *wearing* of arms. Wherepon the legislature outlawed most wearing of arms, which brought us to the present era when the concealed carry legislation was passed. |
|||||||||
|
Armed4Life Regular Member
|
Dahwg wrote:Armed4Life wrote:Can anyone explain to me how any restriction on carrying in places that serve alcohol (other than by the owners request) is NOT an impairment to the right to keep and bear arms? I'm with you 100%...it just seems ridiculous to have to jump through those hoops when it is crystal clear from a constitutional perspective. |
|||||||||
|
TOF Regular Member
|
Write, Email or call your Senator and Reps to urge they get behind SB1270 and make it happen. If Terry Goddard and the Police Chief's have their way it will not. |
|||||||||
|
Dahwg Regular Member
|
TOF wrote:Write, Email or call your Senator and Reps to urge they get behind SB1270 and make it happen. If Terry Goddard and the Police Chief's have their way it will not. Also, let them know you don't like the amended version. Tell them the original is better. Amended version still makes it illegal to carry on school grounds when responding to an emergency. |
|||||||||
|
JesseL Regular Member
|
Looks like it has passed the senate this morning. 19-8 with 3 not voting http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1113.sfinal.1.asp |
|||||||||
|
Dahwg Regular Member
|
JesseL wrote:Looks like it has passed the senate this morning. 19-8 with 3 not voting PASSED TRANSMITTED TO: GOVERNOR 07/01/09 |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
If she veotes this, do we have enough votes for an override? |
|||||||||
|
JesseL Regular Member
|
Notso wrote: If she veotes this, do we have enough votes for an override? I don't think it matters if there are enough votes, the legislature has adjourned for the season. |
|||||||||
|
TOF Regular Member
|
Send her a letter, fax, email or call and urge prompt signing of all 4 2A Bills that are on the way to her desk. Copied from the AZCDL Alert just received. I hope this is OK Fred. "Despite the setback with HB 2439, there are four pro-rights bills that made it through the legislative gauntlet and are headed to the governor's desk. They are SB 1113, SB 1168, SB 1243 and SB 1449. SB 1113, a "Restaurant Carry" bill laden with concessions to appease opponents, passed in the House Third Read yesterday (6/30/09) by a 40-19-1 vote. Early this morning, it passed the Senate Final Read by a 19-8-3 vote. In the final version of SB 1113: - "Open carry" is not allowed in places serving alcohol. 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 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 1168 is the Senate bill containing the "strike everything" amendment substituting the language of HB 2474. It passed the Senate Final Read by a vote of 18-9 with 3 not voting. SB 1168 prevents any private or public employer, property owner, etc., from banning any person from keeping a firearm in a locked vehicle in a parking area on the property, with specific limited exceptions. HB 2474, the original "Parking Lot" bill, passed in the House and made it through Senate committees but was dropped when SB 1168 made it through the process first. SB 1243 passed the House Third Read by a vote of 42-12-6 on June 29. Since the language in SB 1243 remained unchanged, it was sent back to the Senate where it was formally sent to the Governor this morning. SB 1243 is the AzCDL-requested bill that codifies the defensive display of a firearm. Another very important bill that passed this session is SB 1449 which applies, retroactively, statutory changes relating to justification defenses in all cases in which the defendant did not plead guilty or no contest that were submitted to the fact finder as of April 24, 2006. In plain language this means that the restoration of the "innocent until proven guilty" language that passed out of the Legislature via SB 1145 in 2006 retroactively applies to cases pending at the time of passage. The most infamous of these was the trial of Harold Fish, who defended himself while hiking and was prosecuted under the 1997 "guilty until proven innocent" law. Even though SB 1145 became law in the middle of Mr. Fish's trial, he was convicted under the older law. You can read more about Mr. Fish's case here: http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/ . This has been a very bizarre legislative session. With the focus almost entirely on the budget, very little time was spent on non-budget bills, and there was a mad rush to end the session and filter out as many bills as possible. Without the constant pressure YOU provided via your emails, letter and phone calls, AzCDL's representatives (who went home this morning after staying all night lobbying and counting votes at the Capitol) would not have been able to keep pro-rights bill in the pipeline. Pat yourselves on the back – Job Well Done! Unfortunately, we're not out of the woods yet. The Legislature may have adjourned but the Governor now has a stack of bills on her desk to sign, ignore or veto. Her priority is the budget. The Legislature deliberately waited until Sine Die to send the budget to the Governor. If she vetoes the budget, state bureaucracies grind to a halt. A "do over" budget will require the Governor to call a Special legislative session, with more delays. It boils down to gamesmanship and who blinks first. All the non-budget bills might become pawns in the power struggle. Meanwhile, the next step is to start asking the Governor to sign these bills. Her email address is azgov@az.gov. You can also fax a letter to her at 602-542-1381. Or you can mail it to her at the following address: The Honorable Jan Brewer Governor of Arizona 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 You can call her office, toll free, at 1-800-253-0883 or 602-543-4331." If we flood her office with messages of support she will sign to get us off her back. (I hope) |
|||||||||
|
JR Ewing Regular Member
|
Hey, you folks out in AZ (and 0thers) might want to hit this poll [url=http://news.aol.com/article/arizona-guns-bars/551844?icid=webmail|wbml-aim|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Farizona-guns-bars%2F551844]http://news.aol.com/article/arizona-guns-bars/551844?icid=webmail|wbml-aim|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Farizona-guns-bars%2F551844[/url] |
|||||||||
|
Kildars Regular Member 
|
I'd be interested to see a court challenge to the law if someone was ever cited for carrying in a restaurant (assuming the owner doesn't care). The AZ constitution seems pretty plain to me. |
|||||||||
|
protector84 Regular Member
|
I can guess what path the enforcement would take. While the Constitution treats guns as rights, it treats liquor as a privilege. Since a liquor license is a privilege then the license is likely what they would go after, not you. Utilizing private property rights, it would be at the owner's/manager's request for you to leave. |
|||||||||
|
Notso Activist Member
|
I think today is the day, SB1113(and the other gun bills) either get vetoed or not today. |
|||||||||
|
kenpoprofessor Regular Member 
|
Brewer signed this bill, it should go into effect in 90 days. Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day Clyde |
|||||||||
|
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV Regular Member
|
Alright! About stinkin' time. I've really been tired of "breaking the law" these past several years whilst carrying in restaurants (under the "no harm no foul" assumption, of course). |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
CC is considered priveledge of 'mode'... which is why the CWP is required. Bearing the weapon is a right... but the manner of doing it is not (unless borne openly). I forgot when CC was even introduced... '94 I think. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time 'cause it didn't affect me. This won't affect me much 'cause I do not conceal normally... and I'm gonna drink a beer (or two) normally. So... I don't see what difference this makes... 'cause I go out to my truck 'n strap on my gunbelt one way or the other anyway. So does everyone else who carries open. It's a start... i guess. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
kenpoprofessor wrote: Brewer signed this bill, it should go into effect in 90 days. so, has anyone verified what day exactly this goes into effect? also, does the new statute require concealment inside restaurants serving alcohol?? Or can CHP holders carry openly inside restaurants serving alcohol? |
|||||||||
|
WVCDL State Researcher 
|
Mike wrote: kenpoprofessor wrote:Brewer signed this bill, it should go into effect in 90 days. In Arizona, all bills generally take effect 90 days after adjournment sine die of the legislative session. See Ariz. Const. Art. 4, § 1(3). The bill does indeed requires concealment inside restaurants. Arizona becomes only the second state after Alaska to require handguns to be concealed inside restaurants. See Alaska Stat. § 11.61.220(a)(2) and (d). |
|||||||||