AZ Gov. Brewer: Gould’s Campus Carry Bill Too Vague

“While I support thoughtful expansion of where firearms should be allowed, the actual legislation that does so must be unambiguous and clear to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. Senate Bill 1467 is neither.” Governor Brewer made the statement after vetoing the law allowing legal concealed carry permit holders to carry on campus. The last version of the bill was scaled back to allow weapons in public “rights of way” on campuses. Brewer also said the phrase “educational institution”could be applied to elementary and high schools. State Sen. Ron Gould [above], the bill’s sponsor, told the Arizona Republic that it was a “very rude veto letter.”

[NB: This is a re-write of a previous post, which sucked on several different levels.]

comments

  1. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    Unfortunately the bill reads as though it were written by a committee of lawyers. On behalf of those lawyers not involved, I apologize. A simple “If you have a permit, you may carry on campus” clause might have fared better.

  2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

    Years ago, I read a short story…I think it was by Asimov or Clarke (could never keep the two straight in my head). The gist of the story was that a guy had invented a machine that would take government double-speak/legalese, and translate it into plain English. He thought it would be a boon to people who had to read and understand contracts and such. The government approached him. They gave him a choice – sell us your machine, rights and all, for which we’ll pay a princely sum. Or…we kill you, your family, and your friends, and there’s nothing left of you or your life for people to even remember.

    He took the deal. He was (obviously) sworn to secrecy, but he did tell ONE person. And when that friend asked “what did the government do with your machine?” he replied, “Oh…they asked for one change. They wanted me to make it work in reverse.”

    1. avatar 2yellowdogs says:

      Awesome. Sounds like Bradbury.

  3. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    Why does it say, “BY A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A VALID PERMIT?” I thought Arizona did not require a permit for concealed carry. Maybe that’s the problem with the wording.

    Or, as crazy as she seems to be, maybe she’s more reasonable than you guys. Now that’s a scary thought, isn’t it?

    1. avatar Lance says:

      This is true that that you don’t need a permit to carry here in AZ, but having a permit allows you to carry in more places, such as bars, I believe. They also let you bypass the background check for purchasing a firearm. So while you can carry without a permit, there are benefits to having one.

      1. avatar AuricTech says:

        Of course, reciprocity in other states is another benefit to getting an Arizona permit.

  4. avatar Fred says:

    My understanding of AZ law (and I am not a resident of the state, nor expert, and I DID NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) was that you could Open Carry without a permit, but you did indeed need a permit to carry Concealed.

    1. avatar Patrick Carrube says:

      The law was changed; I think 6/1/10 was the change date.

  5. avatar Gunship Cowboy says:

    If you read her letter stating why she vetoed the bill she was concerned that the bill did not contain a definition of “right-of-way” as the bill would allow you to pass through a campus on a right-of-way but could not carry into campus buildings and walk the campus grounds. She stated she did want the bill clearer so the courts would not be defining things within the bill. Gov. Brewer served for many years in the Legislature and with the grief the Feds are giving her in court on SB 1070, the immigration bill, I am certain she is sensitive to bills which would be challenged in court. I’ve been an Arizona resident for over 60 years and I think Gov. Brewer was right on vetoing this bill.

  6. avatar Jeff says:

    The statute wasn’t the problem. What she didn’t understand was this provision of our Bill of Rights:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  7. avatar Travis Leibold says:

    Ultimately I think she was right to turn it down. There really was nothing to gain and a whole lot to lose to confusion and selective enforcement. With no right to carry in the classroom, the “right of way” clause by itself would leave plenty of opportunity for carriers to wishfully think their rights had been restored, leading to police responses and negative PR for the movement as a whole.

  8. avatar deadcenter56 says:

    someone please ‘splain to me’ why CRAP legislation that hinders us and takes away our rights always seem to get passed with vague promises to ‘fix’ it sometime ‘later’ (and never gets done) but imperfect restoration of our rights bills get shot down (on a regular basis) with the ‘support’ of our supposed allies? We gotta stop shooting each other folks, hoping for perfection at the expense of progress…….

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    “the phrase ‘educational institution’ could be applied to elementary and high schools.”

    Not any schools around here. Well, unless you take out the “educational” and leave in the “institution.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email