young man in camo with slung airsoft rifle arrested

imported post

i love how these towns love to exploit the wild west heritage but do everything completely opposite of it.

imported post

JesseL wrote:

Thank to azredhawk over at THR, it's been discovered that the posting at the McDowell Preserve is illegal per ARS 13-3108.

Click to expand...

Just confirmed the same information on the Preserve website:

http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/rules_regs.html
I especially like how they redefine the term 'fire arm' (and also make it into two words) to include things that are not legaly firearms.


Sounds like it's time for some action =)

imported post

i love how these towns love to exploit the wild west heritage but do everything completely opposite of it.

Yeah, that's a good one, ain't it? The first thing I noticed about that sign was the little picture of the cowboy on the bucking bronco, and then the second thing I noticed was "no weapons."

They're a bunch of ******* morons, but, then again, what do you expect from the group of people who elected Sam Campana?

imported post

If you read the text of the relevant Scottsdale ordinance, the law seems to be compliant with 13-3108, but it has a lot of verbiage that basically parses out to nothing.

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/documents/preserve/ord3321.pdf

Sec. 21-2. Purpose of the preserve.
...
(c) The preserve will not contain traditional facilities or improvements associated with a public park, but may contain facilities or improvements that the city determines are necessary or appropriate to support passive recreational activities.

Click to expand...

Sec. 21-12. General rules for use.
(a) All persons using the preserve shall comply with all federal and state laws, and county and city ordinances, rules and regulations.
(b) All persons using the preserve shall comply with the following, except as may be specifically authorized by a permit or permits issued as provided in this section, or in sections 21-22 or 21-23 of this chapter:
(1) No person shall possess a deadly weapon, or an air rifle, air pistol or slingshot in the preserve, or a firearm in any developed or improved area, as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3108, except as otherwise permitted by law.

Click to expand...

Funny that they don't have any developed or improved areas, per their own purpose and the definition laid out in ARS 13-3108, but they still ban firearms in them.

The biggest problem here is that whoever was responsible for making the sign didn't pay any attention to the legal requirements, and that the local law enforcement appears to be enforcing the illegal sign rather than the law.

imported post

Looking a little deeper, that site also links to a PDF file with the 'detailed' rules for the preserve.

Section 21-12 General rules for use

B-1: All persons using the preserve shall comply with the following, except as may be specifically authorized by a permit or permits issues as provided in this section, or in sections 21-22 or 21-23 of this chapter:

No person shall possess a deadly weapon, or an air rifle, air pistol, or slingshot in the preserve, or a firearm in any developed or improved area, as defined in A.R.S. 13-3108, except as otherwise permitted by law.

Click to expand...

Doesn't help the kid in the featured article any, but at least that would be the correct wording (which is not carried over into the signs in the park apparently) that really applies.

Based on that, and the fact that the signs don't specify their re-defining of the term 'firearm' to include airsoft devices, the kid should be able to argue that airsoft was not posted as being disallowed in the park.

As for the real deal, that wording tells me that CCW holders are indeed safe (when held against the official rules vs. the signs or website.)


Edit: doh, looks like JesseL beat me to it...

imported post

JesseL wrote:

The biggest problem here is that whoever was responsible for making the sign didn't pay any attention to the legal requirements, and that the local law enforcement appears to be enforcing the illegal sign rather than the law.

Click to expand...

I'll be sure to carry a printed copy of that PDF if I ever do hike out there =)

imported post

Just shot this message off to every contact listed on http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/contact.html

To whom this may concern:

Recent events in the news combined with my own love of hiking and enjoying the outdoors have brought to my attention an issue regarding the firearm policies which relate to the McDowell Sonoran Preserve.

Signage posted at the preserve (please see attached) specifically prohibits the mere possession of a firearm (which, for the record, violates A.R.S. 13-3108. The only restriction that can legally be made is to require possession of an AZ DPS-issues CCW permit.)

Your website shows yet another version of the wording to also include further restrictions: "As on all city property, fire arms - including paintball guns and all firing devices - are prohibited."

One step further, your 'Full Text' version of the rules located at http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/documents/preserve/ord3321.pdfspecifies even one more version of the rules (this one appearing to be in compliance with A.R.S. 13-3108.)

Sec. 21-12. General rules for use.
(a) All persons using the preserve shall comply with all federal and state laws, and county and city ordinances, rules and regulations.
(b) All persons using the preserve shall comply with the following, except as may be specifically authorized by a permit or permits issued as provided in this section, or in sections 21-22 or 21-23 of this chapter:
(1) No person shall possess a deadly weapon, or an air rifle, air pistol or slingshot in the preserve, or a firearm in any developed or improved area, as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3108, except as otherwise permitted by law.

Not being a lawyer myself, I am not aware of when each of these rules and A.R.S. statues were enacted, and their timed relation to each other, but I would like to know when the McDowell Sonoran Preserve intends to update the signage in order to reflect the actual laws in place (such as has already been done in places like Camelback Mountain, Piestewa Peak (Phoenix Mountain Preserve) and many others.

As a law-abiding Arizona resident and US citizen, I take my right to self-defense very seriously, and carry my sidearm at all times. This should not change when I am out enjoying Arizona's beautiful lands in my free time. Respectfully, I am requesting clarification on the McDowell Sonoran Preserve's stance on the laws in question, and additional clarification on the signage which is posted throughout the preserve.

Best Regards,

Click to expand...

Now the wait begins =) If I can't get any type of response, their office is located within 2 minutes of my home/work, so I can always swing by and see if they are willing to clarify these issues.

imported post

Good job on the letter Throreau.

Technically, since the preserve is larger than one square mile they can't even prohibit non permit holders from carrying except in developed or improves areas - which they don't have.

imported post

JesseL wrote:

Good job on the letter throreau.

Technically, since the preserve is larger than one square mile they can't even prohibit non permit holders from carrying except in developed or improves areas - which they don't have.

Click to expand...

Not sure how large Camelback is (it could very well be smaller than a square mile) but I'm fairly certain that the Phoenix Mountain Preserve (Squaw peak) is larger, and does indeed limit to CCW holders. The Reach 11 recreation area (definitely more than one square mile) is the same way. Not that inconsistency is something that surprises me when it comes from the government... =)

imported post

Thoreau wrote:

JesseL wrote:

Good job on the letter throreau.

Technically, since the preserve is larger than one square mile they can't even prohibit non permit holders from carrying except in developed or improves areas - which they don't have.

Click to expand...

Not sure how large Camelback is (it could very well be smaller than a square mile) but I'm fairly certain that the Phoenix Mountain Preserve (Squaw peak) is larger, and does indeed limit to CCW holders. The Reach 11 recreation area (definitely more than one square mile) is the same way. Not that inconsistency is something that surprises me when it comes from the government... =)

Click to expand...

I'd like to see exactly what their signs say. By ARS 13-3108 if the park is larger than 1 square mile they can only limit carry in the developed or improved areas, and still can't restrict permit holders. Sounds like more cities may need some encouragement to fix their signage.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03108.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

imported post

JesseL wrote:

Thoreau wrote:

Not sure how large Camelback is (it could very well be smaller than a square mile) but I'm fairly certain that the Phoenix Mountain Preserve (Squaw peak) is larger, and does indeed limit to CCW holders. The Reach 11 recreation area (definitely more than one square mile) is the same way. Not that inconsistency is something that surprises me when it comes from the government... =)

Click to expand...

I'd like to see exactly what their signs say. By ARS 13-3108 if the park is larger than 1 square mile they can only limit carry in the developed or improved areas, and still can't restrict permit holders. Sounds like more cities may need some encouragement to fix their signage.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03108.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Click to expand...

In the case of Reach 11, I actually jotted it down while out biking. The sign they have up near the 56th parking lot is verbatim from the <1sq Mile portion of the law:

"Carrying a firearm in this park is limited to persons who possess a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112." and I'm almost 100% certain it was worded in an identical fashion at the entrance to the Squaw Peak area (51/Glendale entrance.)

Again, I can't be sure of the size of any of these.

imported post

Just got an interim response back from them:

Thank you for writing to us! I am forwarding your email to the Preserve Division Director at the City of Scottsdale because he is the source of a definitive answer to your question and to let him know that he and I need to coordinate our messaging. I appreciate your effort in pointing out our mixed messages.

You should hear back from us shortly.

Click to expand...

imported post

In case people haven't read already, the charges were dropped.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/justice/charges_dropped_against_rotc_hiker_08_23_2009

imported post

"A woman told dispatchers, "There is a guy in military fatigues with a gun, my friend thinks it looks like a machine gun." 'Hearsay', right there. Sorry to say... that the Prescott/Scottsdale area is infested with ignorant anti-gun liberal noobscomingfrom who-knows-where? 'Glad to see that this kid wasn't prosecuted... 'n he learned something in the process.

imported post

Once PD arrived and assessed the situation, the kid should have never been arrested. There was no intent to disturb the peace, and Disorderly Conduct is a specific intent crime in AZ.

Sure, a talking-to about common sense and situational awareness would have been appropriate, and the problem would have been solved. Problem is, too many cops and their bosses feel that the problem is only resolved if someone goes to jail.

imported post

Gotta love the headline: "Charges Dropped Against Armed Hiker".

Armed hiker? Who was armed?

The Scottsdale Police Department and the prosecutor's office agreed that criminal charges in this case are not in the best interest of justice.

Click to expand...

Interesting how they make it sound like they're cutting him a break because of the circumstances and "misunderstanding", when the truth is the charges had no statutory basis!

:cuss:

imported post

This fellas... is a perfect example of 'Spin!'

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

This fellas... is a perfect example of 'Spin!'

Click to expand...

Who knows if that line is from the actual government, or just extreme 'paraphrasing' on the part of the reporter. Either way, I'd say it's par for the course, hehe.

On semi-related news, my email to the preserve folks has not yet seen a response since the "You should hear back from us shortly" part. That was ONLY sent on August 20th, so perhaps I'm expecting too quick a response? Sent another follow up asking for a status update.

In case anyone else wishes to pursue this (the more the merrier?) I simply blasted the message out to most of the names/email addresses listed here:

http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/contact.html

For the record, their website still states that "As on all city property, fire arms - including paintball guns and all firing devices - are prohibited." Not sure about in-park signage as I haven't been out there in a while.

imported post

13-3108. Firearms regulated by state; state preemption; violation; classification
A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, a political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer or use of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components in this state.

B. A political subdivision of this state shall not require the licensing or registration of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components or prohibit the ownership, purchase, sale or transfer of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components.

C. This section does not prohibit a political subdivision of this state from enacting and enforcing any ordinance or rule pursuant to state law, to implement or enforce state law or relating to any of the following:

...

5: "Limiting firearms possession in parks or preserves of one square mile or less in area to persons who possess a concealed weapons permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112." ... "In parks or preserves that are more than one square mile in area, a political subdivision may designate developed or improved areas in which the political subdivision may limit firearms possession to persons who possess a concealed weapons permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112. The political subdivision shall post reasonable notice at each designated developed or improved area. The notice shall state the following: "Carrying a firearm in this developed or improved area is limited to persons with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112." For the purposes of this paragraph, "developed or improved area" means an area of property developed for public recreation or family activity, including picnic areas, concessions, playgrounds, amphitheaters, racquet courts, swimming areas, golf courses, zoos, horseback riding facilities and boat landing and docking facilities. Developed or improved area does not include campgrounds, trails, paths or roadways except trails, paths and roadways directly associated with and adjacent to designated developed or improved areas. Any notice that is required by this paragraph shall be conspicuously posted at all public entrances and at intervals of one-fourth mile or less where the park, preserve or developed or improved area has an open perimeter. " ...
...
Source: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03108.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

"The Preserve was established by the City of Scottsdale in 1995. Currently, 16,000 acres are preserved while another 20,000 acres remain within the recommended boundary that voters approved for inclusion within the McDowell Sonoran Preserve." ...

Source: http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/about_res.html

What this means? 16,000 acres equals 25 square miles. So how does the city legally preempt state law and ban "fire arms" in this instance?

Granted, this still means that they can limit firearms to people with CCW permits, but they can not prohibit them as is posted on their signage (illegally worded and posted signage to boot, according to this statute...).

imported post

azlobo73 wrote:

What this means? 16,000 acres equals 25 square miles. So how does the city legally preempt state law and ban "fire arms" in this instance? .

Click to expand...

By assuming the masses are to stupid to realize it. Also by thinking they are immune to the laws of the land if they so choose.

As I kinda expected, I got zero response yesterday from my followup email. Perhaps I can escalate this to the city of Scottsdale directly...

So, who's up for an open-carry walk through the preserve? Heck, on that note, how about the same for the Reach 11 recreation area, Camelback Mountain, and the Squaw Peak area? They all 'allow' CCW holders to carry, but I can't imagine any of them (except MAYBE the Camelback area) being less than a square mile in size.

Also, I'm not one to give the New Times any validity but one part in this article struck me as odd: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/08/charges_dropped_for_teen_who_c.php

"Clark tells us that a sign in the park warns that Airsoft rifles are not permitted, though he says some folks debate the validity of that ordinance."

I think I'll send my email chain over to Sgt. Clark and see if he wishes to clear this up or clarify the positions being held.