Arizona SB 1122

[Tenbones]

Armoredman.  Since you live in AZ I was just wondering about your thoughts on SB 1122 and any far reaching repercussions it might have and what is the background on this that prompted the bill in the first place.  It seems like there might be an interesting story behind all this.

 

[armoredman]

It is, simply, a giant cactus shaped middle finger towards the Bloomberg mansion in New York City, since he is the guy spending millions on so-called Universal Background Checks, which will, if utilized nationwide, result in Universal Registration, always the first step, (as seen in NYC, NYS and Cali), the first major step towards confiscation. We here in AZ take our 2A and Section 26 rights pretty seriously. The nice thing is the statue was written so as to prevent "back-dooring" items like background check for just barrels, or just magazines, or ammunition, anything of any kind lawfully possessed. So if UBCs are proposed as a voter initiative it will conflict with now more than one state law. That is the basic premise behind this one. Some might find it amazing, living in restrictive states, but Arizona has not only had unregistered, unlicensed lawful open carry for over 100 years, but the state wisely chose to recognize that private citizens transferring property amongst themselves is nobody's business but theirs. If they transfer property illegally, as criminals will with any kind of background check or not, then that individual will be prosecuted under relevant law, instead of punishing the whole state.
#1 in firearms freedom in the nation for I think three years running. 

[CZ Aficionado]

Can't say AZ is my favorite place but for gun laws they do it right...gotta give credit where it's due 

[armoredman]

We do have places that aren't hot...even get snow...

[cntrydawwwg]

Just went and glanced at it. Sounds pretty good. Even though some cities may still try to circumvent it.
   We had that here. A city was going to be the saviors of us all and voted for UBC's inside city boundaries. They were informed by our AG that they would be in violation of the law, so they tabled it.
   Fast forward about a year later and they passed it. So proud of themselves for saving us, once again, AG steps in and says "NO!" It's against state law.
        In fact, it's written pretty clearly, but still they persist.
    Excerpt of MT. law----
 "a county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun."

[armoredman]

The bill that was going to put real teeth in our pre-emption law failed, but we can still file suit against them and the political subdivision can lose all state funding...that being a very large chunk of change, they would have to want to stand very high on principle, especially since charges under their unlawful ordinance would be dismissed out of hand. The one that failed would have allowed the injured party to sue both the political subdivision AND the individual responsible, plus fire the individual from government employ.

[cntrydawwwg]

We just need to keep up the fight. For us, I think we've gone as far as we can with our Dem. Gov. He's vetoed 3 different CCW bills that came across his desk this year. Something tells me this will be his last term. 

[armoredman]

We just need to keep up the fight. For us, I think we've gone as far as we can with our Dem. Gov. He's vetoed 3 different CCW bills that came across his desk this year. Something tells me this will be his last term.

Good. People who don't believe good honest citizens should be able to lawfully defend themselves need a new job - dog catcher is open in your town, isn't it?

[cntrydawwwg]

Lol, if not ours, I'm sure there's an opening somewhere.

[Diamondbackmike2004]

SB1122 had no words leading to firearms and never mentions is per say but we all know that it was in regards to firearms. What im curious is would there have been a different outcome if it had specifically said "firearm". Would it have passed through our Democratic senate and house members?

AZ Senate members who votes no; CONTRERAS, MEZA, MENDEZ
AZ House members who voted no;  BLANC, HERNANDEZ, CAMPBELL, NAVARRETE, BENALLY, RIOS, ESPINOZA (TOWNSEND was absent)

Interesting demographic that votes no.......   

[Arsenaljoe]

Will have to look into this. AZ does have the most lenient gun laws!

[armoredman]

Not "lenient", more like respectful of the right.