Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Good news from state Capitol...

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Two pieces of pro-gun legislation advance in the state Capitol:legislation to allow guns in parked vehicles on work/business sites and legislation to allow guns in restaurants that serve booze by the drink........

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...e0510guns.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    Yeah, that is great news!

  3. #3
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    If the NRA gets its wish, registered gun owners in Arizona will be able to keep weapons locked in their cars outside of a business, regardless of the business' policy on weapons in the workplace; they'll also be allowed to bring guns into certain restaurants that serve alcohol.
    Registered gun owners? What the hell? Someone needs to educate these people.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Maricopa, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    I had to get in the conversation over there, it's heating up rather quickly. Yeah the whole "registered" needs to be squashed. The anti's are coming out of the wood work. I'm going to do a site drop for ocdo.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    damn I wasn't paying attention to that wording close enough...that suckage.

  6. #6
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    While I haven't read the bills, I believe the whole 'registered gun owner' thing is an add-on by an ignorant writer, since AZ has no gun registration! There is no law for it, there is no mechanism for it. Either the writer let his/her ignorance show, or meant CWP licnesed gun owners. Perhaps someone could actually read the language in the bill to see which it is.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I wonder if they are referring to CCW permit holders. Even that has nothing to do with owning guns and it doesn't register guns or gun owners but only the ability to carry concealed and in parks. You could have a CCW and not even own a gun but use it to CC a large knife.

  8. #8
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    Probably referring to HB 2474 and nearly identical SB 1113. AZ legislative bill search had marked HB 2474 as having "no action" a few days ago. Therefore a little confusion at this end.

  9. #9
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    HB 2474 as posted on the AZ legislative bill site:

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....ls/hb2474p.htm

    NRA site claims vote on HB 2474 will occur on Tuesday 5/12.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    I highly recommend that every gun owner in AZ gets signed up for the state legislature "request to speak" (RTS) system. It allows you to register your position on any bill before the legislature, and even allows you to send notes to the committee in favor of or in opposition to pending bills.

    You have to sign up for it at any one of the kiosks at the state capital or you can have AZCDL do it for you.

    http://www.azcdl.org

    http://alistrack.azleg.gov/rts/login.asp

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    A.A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity shall not prohibit a person who lawfully possesses a firearm from transporting or storing the firearm in a locked and privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles.
    B.A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity or the agent or employee of a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an act involving a firearm that is transported or stored pursuant to this section in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles.
    C.This section does not prohibit an employer or a business entity from adopting a policy that specifies that a firearm stored in a locked and privately owned motor vehicle that is parked on property that is owned or controlled by the employer or business entity remain out of plain view of the public.
    D.This section does not apply if:
    1.The possession of the firearm is prohibited by federal or state law.
    2.The motor vehicle is owned or leased by a public or private employer or business entity and is used by an employee in the course of the employment, unless the employee is required to store or transport a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties or if the public or private employer or business entity consents to the transportation or storage of the firearm.



    That is the bill in a nutshell. Now with "C"...does that mean the employer can have you park on the 10th floor to keep you out of sight? Not sure I understand that part.
    My other thought on this...Does this mean shopping malls etc can't prohibit you from bringing your handgun anymore..I see signs in some places that state if you are parking your vehicle here you cannot have a handgun. If that's the case, I can't wait to tell these businesses to take down there B.S.


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    Crossfire Jedi wrote:
    A.¬*¬*A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity shall not prohibit a person who lawfully possesses a firearm from transporting or storing the firearm in a locked and privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles.
    B.¬*¬*A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity or the agent or employee of a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an act involving a firearm that is transported or stored pursuant to this section in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles.
    C.¬*¬*This section does not prohibit an employer or a business entity from adopting a policy that specifies that a firearm stored in a locked and privately owned motor vehicle that is parked on property that is owned or controlled by the employer or business entity remain out of plain view of the public.
    D.¬*¬*This section does not apply if:
    1.¬*¬*The possession of the firearm is prohibited by federal or state law.
    2.¬*¬*The motor vehicle is owned or leased by a public or private employer or business entity and is used by an employee in the course of the employment, unless the employee is required to store or transport a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties or if the public or private employer or business entity consents to the transportation or storage of the firearm.



    That is the bill in a nutshell.¬* Now with "C"...does that mean the employer can have you park on the 10th floor to keep you out of sight?¬* Not sure I understand that part.
    My other thought on this...Does this mean shopping malls etc can't prohibit you from bringing your handgun anymore..I see signs in some places that state if you are parking your vehicle here you cannot have a handgun.¬* If that's the case, I can't wait to tell these businesses to take down there B.S.
    As I read C it basically says they can tell you that not only does it have to be locked in your vehicle, they can require that it has to be out of sight. Actually, that's just plain old common sense.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Wow, I thought the restaurant carry bill was dead. Glad to see it is alive in the Senate. I sure hope is passes.

    It is silly that I can protect my family at an I-Hop for breakfast, but can't do the same at an Olive Garden for dinner. That is just crazy!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    HB 2474 is scheduled for a ‚ÄúThird Read‚ÄĚ vote by the full House on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.For those of you receiving NRA-ILA alerts, the date of the vote has been moved from May 12 to May 13.

    HB 2474 stipulates thatproperty owners, tenants, public or private employers, and business entities must not prohibit the transport or storage of legally owned firearms in locked and privately owned motor vehicles parked within parking lots, parking garages, and other designated parking areas.It exempts property owners, tenants, public or private employers, business entities, and theiremployees or agents from civil liability for damages resulting from or arising out of an act involving a legally owned firearm that is transported or stored within a locked and privately owned vehicle.It allows employers and business entities to prescribe policies mandating that owners keep firearms out of the plain view of the public when stored or transported in locked and privately owned vehicles. And, it specifies inapplicability stemming from state and federal prohibition, and motor vehicle ownership.

    We urge everyone to contact your Representatives and politely ask them to vote for HB 2474 during the House Third read on Wednesday, May 13, 2009.



    http://www.arizonadefensegroup.com


  15. #15
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    AZCDL announced House Bill 2474 passes third reading this afternoon by vote of 41-10. (9 non vote) HB 2474 now goes to the Senate.:celebrate

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    I was speaking to security guards at my office, they were not happy about this bill at all...blood vessels starting popping out of there heads. I know they are un-armed due to corporate policy, however, I admit being a bit shocked that they were against this bill. They would not go into why they didn't like it..but definitely became upset and hostile.

    The other wording in the bill...the part about "remain out of plain view of the public". I really don't understand this. Are they speaking only of the gun in a locked car being in a the glove box or can this be understood as I need to park on the 10th floor with the rest of the gun owners....

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    I think it's the same thought process, regardless of the level. The masters(if only un-armed security guards in this case) don't want the 'underlings' to have equal or in that case, more power. They are taught not to trust 'underlings' but can't conceive the notion that a criminal doesn't care what the rules are anyway. It's all just pretty silly.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Unarmed Security Guards in a freely (and openly)'armed' State doesn't make a lot of sense. Iunderstand their 'attitude' 'bout this... altho I don't agree with it. 'Just another example of two-tierd mentality.

Posting Permissions

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