Arizona governor vetoes bills that would have eased gun controls

In Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano has vetoed legislation that sought to ease restrictions on where people can carry guns in vehicles. Other gun bills in the state met the same fate.

The measure – HB2389 – would have permitted guns to be hidden anywhere in vehicles, whether the person possessed a concealed weapons permit or not.

The governor said in her veto message that the bill “would have added to the level of uncertainty and danger law enforcement officers who make traffic stops already face in the line of duty.”

Arizona law currently lets people who don’t have concealed carry permits to have guns in cases, holsters or luggage in vehicles. Weapons also are allowed in glove boxes, map pockets and elsewhere. Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said his bill was intended to keep people without permits from getting arrested simply because their guns were inadvertently covered.

Napolitano also vetoed another bill – HB2626 – that would have prohibited police from charging people with illegally carrying a concealed weapon if any portion of the gun was visible.

“Common sense tells us that exposure of a small corner of a gun handle is insufficient to give reasonable notice to the public or to law enforcement that a person is armed,” Napolitano wrote.

Other Arizona gun bills vetoed by her this year include a bill that called for reducing the penalty for illegally carrying concealed weapons. State law now allows for $2,500 fines and/or six months in jail for people found in violation. The measure sought to limit penalties to $300 in fines.

Napolitano said the current penalties are appropriate.

Advocates for the change said the bill was intended to protect people who are not committing any other crimes. Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said it is unrealistic to believe that making it a crime to carry concealed weapons actually deters crime, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

One other vetoed bill would have allowed people who believe they are threatened to unholster a gun without being charged with a crime.

By: Keith Goble, Land Line Magazine

D.C. City Council Passes Law to Restrict Gun Use

Despite the Supreme Court ruling of less than a month ago, which tossed out the ban on handguns in the nation’s capitol, the D.C. City Council has passed an “emergency law” in an apparent attempt to negate that Supreme Court ruling.

Handguns previously confiscated by Washington, D.C. police.

On June 26 the Supreme Court upheld the idea that the Constitution’s Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, in the home for self-defense as well as for hunting and sport. But there were flaws in the decision as discussed in an excellent analysis by journalist Warren Mass in an article for this Website entitled: “Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Second Amendment.” Now, those flaws have already come home to roost.

By insisting that government confers the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court opened the door for heavy regulation and registration rules for guns and their owners. And it is exactly on this flaw that the D.C. City Council has based its new emergency laws.

Residents of our nation’s crime-ridden capitol must obtain a city-issued permit and can keep handguns in their homes only for self-defense. But the self-defense principle is immediately negated by also requiring them to keep their firearms unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they are facing a “threat of immediate harm,” in their homes only; not backyards or front driveways. As criminals rarely allow their victims the amount of time it takes to fiddle around trying to put a gun together in order to protect oneself, this provision will only serve as the impetus for potential prosecution of homeowners who do happen to use their firearms in defense of their homes and families, and further serves to protect criminals.

The registration process and mandates for obtaining a gun permit are burdensome and highly restrictive. The process, according to city officials, could take months with applicants having to submit their weapons to the police chief for an expensive ballistic fingerprinting test. Individuals must be fingerprinted themselves and need to demonstrate their proficiency with their weapon as well as passing a written safety test and vision exam. Anyone with a previous criminal record from a variety of charges may be barred from obtaining a permit.

And then there’s the business of outlawing a whole class of guns, namely semi-automatic pistols, the weapon of choice comprising 75 percent of all handgun sales in the United States. Any gun that carries more than 11 rounds is automatically disqualified from ownership, as well as are those that load from the bottom.

These provisions are some of the toughest in the nation and both the NRA and Bill of rights Foundation will be filing lawsuits to fight the district’s new rules. "This is a blatant defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, a defiance of the law" says Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), "There is no question that their 'emergency legislation' will be challenged and overturned."

But putting it back in the hands of the court is still very worrisome. A better way would be for Congress to uphold the Constitution by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts when matters of the Second Amendment are concerned.

By: Ann Shibler, John Birch Society