Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Game On!

  1. #1
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Game On!

    The 2012 Arizona legislative session officially starts on Monday, January 9.

    AzCDL has been working with legislators on proposed legislation since the last session ended. Legislators will soon file bills they are sponsoring, starting a difficult journey that, if all goes well, ends at the Governor’s desk.

    To see any bill that AzCDL is monitoring, visit our Bill Tracking page. As bills appear on this page, we will add our position (i.e., support or oppose), along with other relevant information. This page is constantly being updated and a visit there will give you the current status of any bill we’re keeping an eye on.

    Proposed legislation must survive committee assignments, several debates and multiple votes – in both chambers (House and Senate) of the Arizona legislature. AzCDL representatives will be working at the Capitol full time, meeting with legislators and “stake holders,” along with testifying at hearings, to move good legislation towards passage and defeat bad bills aimed at destroying your rights.

    However, AzCDL’s success at the Capitol is dependent upon YOUR involvement. We need activists who emphatically let legislators know how you want them to vote on pending legislation. This is not a time to let the “other guy” do the work. As Edmund Burke stated, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

    AzCDL’s Legislative Action Center makes getting involved a matter of a few mouse clicks. If you go to http://azcdl.capwiz.com/azcdl/home/ and provide your location, you will find your legislators along with contact information. When legislators need to hear from you, we will send out an “Alert” and provide information on the bills that need your action, along with a link to a letter waiting for you to email from our Action Center. You can send the letter “as is” or personalize it. In most cases, all you need to do is click on a “send” button. Legislators pay attention when they receive thousands of emails politely urging them to vote for or against a bill. It was this type of activism that contributed to the passage of Constitutional Carry, and many other history making bills.

    Another tool for voicing your opinion is provided by the Arizona Legislature. It’s the Request To Speak (RTS) system. Once you have a user ID and password on RTS, you can log-on through the Internet and leave comments on pending bills. You are NOT required to show up and testify – it’s just one of the options. One of the advantages of the RTS system is that your comments are available to committee members during hearings. It seems to carry a little extra weight.

    To obtain a user ID and password on RTS, you must be initially logged on using one of the kiosk terminals at the Capitol. If you would like assistance in accessing the RTS system, please contact Dave Kopp, AzCDL’s president or John Wentling, AzCDL’s Vice-president.

    It’s time for action!

    Stay tuned! When critical legislation moves, we will notify you via our email Alerts.

    You can also follow AzCDL on Facebook, and during the legislative session, we’ll send out updates via Twitter.

    AzCDL’s Political Action Committee (PAC) is also on Facebook.

    These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.

    AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom

    Copyright © 2012 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.
    Last edited by azcdlfred; 01-07-2012 at 06:00 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    CWP language correction

    'I hereby certify that the person described hereon has been granted the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon in compliance with Arizona Revised Statute 13-3112'

    Since when is a right a privilege to be granted by any 'official' entity? 'See if you can get this language changed to reflect that under the AzC and USC.

    I stopped posting on this forum for obvious reasons but this is an important issue that need to be addressed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    'I hereby certify that the person described hereon has been granted the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon in compliance with Arizona Revised Statute 13-3112'. Since when is a right a privilege to be granted by any 'official' entity? 'See if you can get this language changed to reflect that under the AzC and USC. I stopped posting on this forum for obvious reasons but this is an important issue that need to be addressed.
    Thanks for the reminder. I remember when you brought it up at our annual meeting.

    Fred

  4. #4
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    What SR suggested has been mentioned by several AZCDL members as a needed change on the AZ permit. After all, constitutional carry in Arizona is not a privilege.

    Here's hoping Arizona receives a -2 on the Brady Bunch schitt list on our 100 year anniversary.

  5. #5
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by GWbiker View Post
    After all, constitutional carry in Arizona is not a privilege.
    Technically, the CCW permit can be viewed as a "privilege" since it's not a right in the Arizona Constitution, as interpreted by the courts.

    In 1990, in Dano v. Collins, the appeals court ruled, and the AZ supreme court declined to hear (making it law througout Arizona), that Section 2, Article 26 (the Arizona right to bear arms) does NOT apply to "concealed" weapons.

    This led to the 1994 CCW law. However, keep in mind that the legislature could have created Constitutional Carry instead of a CCW law. But the paradigm was different then.

    In 2010 we achieved Constitutional Carry by removing the legislative requirement to get a permit to carry discreetly.

    As Bismark said, "legislation is like sausage, you don't what to see how either is made."

    Fred

  6. #6
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958
    I understand that Arizona was hindered by "Activist Judges" in the early 90's, but did anyone of them care to read the AZ Constitution, then crack open a dictionary?

    Arizona constitution Article 2, section 26 - Bearing arms

    Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    And Webster sez....
    im·pair
       /ɪmˈpɛər/ Show Spelled[im-pair] Show IPA
    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to make or cause to become worse; diminish in ability, value, excellence, etc.; weaken or damage: to impair one's health; to impair negotiations.
    verb (used without object)
    2.
    to grow or become worse; lessen.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post
    Technically, the CCW permit can be viewed as a "privilege" since it's not a right in the Arizona Constitution, as interpreted by the courts.

    In 1990, in Dano v. Collins, the appeals court ruled, and the AZ supreme court declined to hear (making it law througout Arizona), that Section 2, Article 26 (the Arizona right to bear arms) does NOT apply to "concealed" weapons.

    This led to the 1994 CCW law. However, keep in mind that the legislature could have created Constitutional Carry instead of a CCW law. But the paradigm was different then.

    In 2010 we achieved Constitutional Carry by removing the legislative requirement to get a permit to carry discreetly.

    As Bismark said, "legislation is like sausage, you don't what to see how either is made."

    Fred
    You may wish to remind the Legislature of this: In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."


    'Upon the person on in a pocket'. There was never any caveate as to mode of carry as none was intended. Bearing arms is a right. The manner of which being at the discretion of the bearer in the absence of language to the contrary in the AzC. There's nothing specific to firearms either.

    Again, the 'state' cannot and does not grant rights. The state either recognizes the right or denies it, but the individual right of bearing arms in self defense remains even in total absence of the state. The state itself has no rights... the state has authority.

    "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 01-16-2012 at 09:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    The court ignored even better evidence: Excellent article on the Arizona Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    You may wish to remind the Legislature of this: In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."


    'Upon the person on in a pocket'. There was never any caveate as to mode of carry as none was intended. Bearing arms is a right. The manner of which being at the discretion of the bearer in the absence of language to the contrary in the AzC. There's nothing specific to firearms either.

    Again, the 'state' cannot and does not grant rights. The state either recognizes the right or denies it, but the individual right of bearing arms in self defense remains even in total absence of the state. The state itself has no rights... the state has authority.

    "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
    Here is the article by Robert Dowlut that details the voting history during the construction of the Arizona Constitution. In brief, the delegates, not once, but twice, refused to limit the constitutional protections to only the open carry of arms. The activist judges in Dano v. Collins refused to acknowledge the history. I talked to former Arizona Attorney General Bob Corbin about this. He had done some of the original research to find the history of this in the Arizona Constitution procedings, and he was disgusted with the unwillingness of the judges to uphold the Arizona Constitution.

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowpubh.html
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 01-22-2012 at 04:10 PM. Reason: spelling correction

Posting Permissions

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