Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: HB 2532

  1. #1
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Does anyone know anything about this bill? It would strip a person of RKBA for life after a commitment instead of just until their court-ordered treatment is terminated.

    http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBil..._Number=HB2532

    Is AZCDL aware of this? Thousands of peaceable gun owners could be stripped of their gun rights.

  2. #2
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    I just did some digging and, much to my chagrin, AZCDL actually supports this monstrosity. It purports to provide a concrete method for a person to have their gun rights restored, but it would do no such thing. Instead of automatically getting your gun rights back when the court order is terminated, you'd have to get a doctor to testify that you're no longer a danger to yourself or others. Of course, most shrinks are anti-gun to the core and even those who aren't would never testify such a thing; that would be a malpractice lawsuit waiting to happen.

    I urge AZCDL to change its stance on this bill.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Dear me812 -

    AzCDL does NOT support HB 2532. I do not know where you get your information, but it is NOT correct. Please be more careful in assigning positions to us.

    We are certainly aware of it and have objections to the way it is written. When the time is appropriate, we will post an alert on what actions will be taken on the bill. As Valentine Michael Smith said, "waiting is."

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL
    secretary@azcdl.org
    Host, Liberty Watch, and
    America Armed & Free
    Sun 10 - Noon
    AM 690 KVOI Tucson
    AM 930 KAPR Douglas
    AM 1240 KJAA Globe



    I just did some digging and, much to my chagrin, AZCDL actually supports this monstrosity. It purports to provide a concrete method for a person to have their gun rights restored, but it would do no such thing. Instead of automatically getting your gun rights back when the court order is terminated, you'd have to get a doctor to testify that you're no longer a danger to yourself or others. Of course, most shrinks are anti-gun to the core and even those who aren't would never testify such a thing; that would be a malpractice lawsuit waiting to happen.

    I urge AZCDL to change its stance on this bill.

  4. #4
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    AzCDL does NOT support HB 2532.

    In that case, my apologies.

    I do not know where you get your information, but it is NOT correct.

    Your website sez that it's "an attempt to provide a more concrete means for people who have been found incompetent to bear arms due to mental disability to have their rights restored." That sounds to me like support, but if it isn't, I apologize.

    In any case, if you need a pre-written e-mail about this to give to those on your mailing list, contact me. I've got a good one saved in my email account and ready to go.

    ETA: The two sponsors are Republicans, so I've got a bad feeling about this one.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    From the website:

    http://www.azcdl.org/html/2009_bills.html#hb2532HB 2532
    Ash - prohibited possessors; persistently, acutely disabled

    A somewhat vaguely written attempt to provide a more concrete means for people who have been found incompetent to bear arms due to mental disability to have their rights restored.

    AzCDL is neutral on this bill.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Dahwg -

    Understood. As mentioned in an earlier post, we are aware of this and are not supporting it. When the time comes to act upon this bill with amendments, we will be on it. Right now the budget is consuming most of the energy of the legislature.

    When it moves, we will attempt tomake itmore favorable. We are on it, but right nowlobbying about it at the legislature is not warranted.

    The fact that you and others are paying attention so keenly, is a good sign for our republic. H.U.E.O. (heads up, eyes open.)

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    CharlesHeller wrote:
    Dahwg -

    Understood. As mentioned in an earlier post, we are aware of this and are not supporting it. When the time comes to act upon this bill with amendments, we will be on it. Right now the budget is consuming most of the energy of the legislature.

    When it moves, we will attempt tomake itmore favorable. We are on it, but right nowlobbying about it at the legislature is not warranted.

    The fact that you and others are paying attention so keenly, is a good sign for our republic. H.U.E.O. (heads up, eyes open.)

    Charles Heller
    Secretary, AzCDL
    I got it. My post was in response to me812's I know the good AZCDL does... I'm a fan of your show on Sunday afternoons. I'm most concerned about SB1270 I'd saythis is theone single billthat will give usthe most bang for our buck!


  8. #8
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    When it moves, we will attempt tomake itmore favorable. We are on it, but right nowlobbying about it at the legislature is not warranted.

    I already have an email about this composed and saved. Do you think it's too early to send it to my reps?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    me812 wrote:
    When it moves, we will attempt tomake itmore favorable. We are on it, but right nowlobbying about it at the legislature is not warranted.

    I already have an email about this composed and saved. Do you think it's too early to send it to my reps?
    An excellent idea! We should all be vigilant about any and all bills being considered. Activism is about more than strapping a gun on your hip. Let's do it OCDO!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Here's my email, in case anyone wants to use it:

    Dear Representative (or Senator),

    I urge you to oppose HB 2532. Its proponents claim that it would provide a more concrete means for people who have been found incompetent to bear arms due to mental disability to have their rights restored but, in reality, it would do no such thing. Under current state law, when a person's court-ordered treatment is terminated, his rights are automatically restored. Under HB 2532, a person would first have to convince doctors and a judge that he is fit to possess firearms. This would be a near-impossible task when one considers that both the American Bar Association and the psychiatric profession are, by and large, virulently anti-gun, and that even those psychiatrists who do not harbor an anti-gun bias would be loath to testify that any person is fit to own a firearm due to fear of malpractice lawsuits over said person's possible future criminal activities with guns. The end result of this legislation would be to restore virtually no one's right to possess a gun under federal law while stripping thousands of their right to possess a gun under state law.

    HB 2532 is well intentioned, but ill-advised. It will result in a net loss of gun rights and snare more of the non-violent mentally ill into our already overcrowded jails and prisons where they do not belong.

    Current Arizona law regarding guns and the mentally ill is already harsher than it needs to be. If anything, the prohibition in ARS 13-3101 regarding firearms and the mentally ill should be repealed altogether. When a person is on court-ordered treatment, the terms of the court order prohibit him from possessing firearms, anyway, and if he violates the terms of court order, he can be rehospitalized by the mental heath authorities. This, and not a felony prosecution, is the just and proper way to deal with a mentally ill person who has harmed no one, is merely in possession of a firearm, and may not have even been found by the courts to constitute a danger to anyone but himself.

    Sincerely,
    Your name
    Your address
    City, state, zip code
    Phone number
    Insert gun group memberships here

  11. #11
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    This bill is now sitting on the governor's desk. If anyone wants to contact her, she can be contacted here:

    http://azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •