Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Jan folds.

Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer, who dismayed Democrats by never meeting a gun law she didn't like, finally met a gun law she didn't like.

She vetoed a measure that would have allowed Arizonans to pack their heaters in publicly-owned buildings, such as city halls and libraries, on the grounds that the only way the bill allowed these buildings to remain posted as no-toting-zones was to install metal detectors and secure lockers so that legally-armed patrons would have a safe place to park their gat while they went in to check out their books. (Because handling loaded guns for safety in the lobby is always a good idea!)

30 comments:

Joseph said...

The whole handling guns is bad is bewildering to me. For some reason, I seem to do this every day at least twice a day without discharging one into my thigh or foot or anywhere else for that matter. Seems cops are mostly capable of doing so as well. Yes, someone invariably booger-hooks the bang switch (yes, I used booger-hook as a verb, deal with it).

Sure, its safer if you leave it in the holster, it's also safer if you leave it completely unloaded, at home or better yet, don't buy one to begin with.

There be idiots among us in the gun community and the INDY 1500 proves that on a near yearly basis. To have the standard reaction that handling a loaded gun is inherently dangerous seems a bit misplaced to me since whomever is carrying is by definition, handling a loaded gun at some point. I also think it lends to the line of thinking that "if they didn't have guns at all, even SAFER".

$0.02

Tam said...

Joseph,

"Seems cops are mostly capable of doing so as well."

Almost every po-po ND story you'll hear happens in a locker room, restroom, or sally port.

Woodman said...

Why not remove the entire holster? That way there is no possibility of the gun leaping into their hand and "accidentally" discharging.

I don't currently carry, so this may be a massively stupid question.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Understand this is the second time she did so. Guess she has the Politician Syndrome: No Armed Peasants near Me or My Cronies.

Joseph said...

Almost every po-po ND story you'll hear happens in a locker room, restroom, or sally port.

Which is where they would be handling the guns, hence you wouldn't hear the ND happening in the Dairy Queen or patrol car. I don't see your point.

I'm not arguing that handling loaded guns is when ND happen. I'm saying that having an attitude of "don't touch it because bad things can happen" is in line with "don't carry, bad things can happen". One is just more extreme.

Ed Skinner said...

Because the proposed law was selective and would have required security, storage, etc, the burden and expense thereof were why Jan vetoed the bills (she says).
A complete "OK" to carry in such places would not require security, storage, an so forth and, hence, no support" by financially strapped services (e.g., Police) would be required.
Anti-gunnies scored a victory on these by making the bills too expensive to pass.
Take a lesson. The libbers aren't stupid.

Tam said...

Joseph,

"I'm not arguing that handling loaded guns is when ND happen. I'm saying that having an attitude of "don't touch it because bad things can happen" is in line with "don't carry, bad things can happen". One is just more extreme."

All I'm saying is that, since we know that a gun in the holster is safe, while one being handled has the possibility of being discharged, then mandating handling in the name of safety is a contradiction in terms.

Anonymous said...

Joseph, here's my take:

Handling guns opens the door for user error. None of us are perfect. Therefore, handle guns only when necessary. A situation where I'm being attacked falls under "necessary," so I need to have my gun with me. Holstering and unholstering my gun for mindless bureaucratic reasons, or to show it off, or so a police officer can "inspect" it for no reason... none of these fall under "necessary."

Alath
Carmel IN

Inspector said...

"All I'm saying is that, since we know that a gun in the holster is safe, while one being handled has the possibility of being discharged, then mandating handling in the name of safety is a contradiction in terms."

The problem is that in the context of where you said it, you are implying that a sign which says "gun free zone" is somehow safer than - or otherwise preferable to - some gun handling.

No.

.45ACP+P said...

I visit the Legislature in the General Assembly here in Virginia, armed and legal. Why in the hell would there need to be any handling of firearms at all? Carry should be allowed and then there is no reason for the dither. Who is stupid enough to believe you need to be disarmed at a LIBRARY???????????? Eliminate the disarming rule and all that horrible expense just goes away.

Anonymous said...

Inspector:

They're safe and dangerous in different ways.

A "gun free zone" is unsafe because it increases the odds of a psychotic mass murder rampage.

A zone of "everyone has to take out their guns and fiddle-fart with them under distracting circumstances for no good reason" is dangerous because it increases the odds of NDs.

They're both stupid and dangerous. We can argue all day about which is stupider and dangerouser, I guess, but I don't see the point.

Alath
Carmel IN

ExurbanKevin said...

Funny how Jan Brewer is A Great Heroine of Conservatism everywhere but her home state...

Inspector said...

"We can argue all day about which is stupider and dangerouser, I guess, but I don't see the point."

Well, there is one point - without offering a positive alternative in this context, you implicitly support the status quo, the "gun free zone." If the metal detectors thing isn't your bag, then what is? .45ACP+P seems to be taking the right approach, here.

Bubblehead Les. said...

FWIW, didn't the Texas State Capital set up a "Speed Line" at their Check Points a few years back so that CCW Holders wouldn't have to play with their Pistols? Haven't heard of any Bullets flying around the Rotunda in Austin.

karrde said...

@Woodman,
Why not remove the entire holster?

A lot of belt-carry options have the belt go through loop(s) on the holster. Those would be hard to remove the holster without also doing a complete belt-removal...

(Not all; I've got a Galco IWB holster that uses a hook that slides over the pants-wasteband and grabs the bottom of the belt. This holster can be removed with gun inside without removing the belt in question.)

Pocket-carry tends not to have that problem.

Anonymous said...

How much does this hurt Jan Brewer's average?

Mike James

Erin Palette said...

OK, perhaps I'm sun-addled at the moment (having spent the morning at the range) but I have read the article three times and I am still confused.

To whit: There was a bill to allow carry in libraries et al. This bill was then vetoed because it would cost money to set up security to prohibit firearms in the exact same places the bill would authorize them.

Am I just being stupid? Am I missing something? Or did it indeed happen that someone said "We can't let you do X, because the cost of preventing you from doing X in a totally legal way is too expensive."

Please translate for me.

Will said...

Joseph and Inspector:

perhaps you two should do a little reading of prior posts/comments on this blog. You do seem to be unclear on the concept.

Woodman said...

My reading of the article was that it would allow carry of firearms to the venues in question but not into certain areas.

I see the arguments against concealed carry in a courtroom. And with a armed cop or two right there it seems to carry weight. So I guess you would need a gun check before the court area but you could go get a marriage license without ungunning.

I get holster thing now. My Dad always pocket carries or uses a clip on internal holster.

Stuart the Viking said...

Erin,

No... no... I think you understand perfectly.

s

SGB said...

She did fold indeed.

Aaron Burr said...

Cut Jan some slack, we're fuggin' broke in this state trying to fend off the mesikins' and the fuggin' Feds at the same time.

Fine, I'll leave the smokewagon locked up in the saddle bag when I go to the fuggin' library. If shit goes down in the Classics section, I'll mace the bastard and beat the Dickens out of him with a sap.

Goober said...

Erin - the bill would allow carry into those areas unless the admins of those areas didn't want people to carry in those areas, at which point those areas that said that they don't want people to carry would be required to provide storage facilities at the metal detector station for those areas, for people wh were carrying guns and wanted to get into those areas and had to leave their gat behind to do so.

So, it says "you can carry here, unless we say you can't, at which point we are required to provide a locker for your gat while you're here."

Clear as mud now?

Don M said...

I am old enough to remember why they got rid of all the luggage lockers in bus stations, and airports.

They were used by very bad people to store bombs before they went off. They were convenient for them, as they kept the bombs safe while the terrorists got safely away from the bomb.

To torture Rumsfeld's phrase, "You can only do politics with the legislature you have, not the legislature you wish you had, or the legislature you might get in the future."

Anonymous said...

From the NRA-ILA website entry on this bill:

The public property is a secure facility;
Access is controlled or restricted to the general public by the presence of either a state or federal certified law enforcement officer OR an armed security officer and metal detection, x-ray, screening, or other weapon detection equipment;
There are signs prohibiting the possession of firearms clearly posted at all public entrances;
Secure firearms lockers are provided within reasonable proximity to the main public entrance, are under control of the operator of the property, and allow for immediate retrieval of the firearm upon exiting.


So essentially you would be allowed to carry UNLESS the facility enacted "secure premesis" measures, which would be costly. Jan did not want to alienate all her supporters in government at the County and Municipality level, so it got the Ax. More importantly, IMO, is that there were quite a few unrelated clarifications to other sections of the firearms laws that would have been nice to have passed.

Old NFO said...

All we need is for someone to 'disarm' and have an ND in a public place... sigh

Guffaw in AZ said...

Having rights metered by government is a bad idea.
Rumor has it an improved version of this bill will surface next session.
Stranger things have happened.
gfa

gnholb said...

I am probably missing the finer points of the discussion, but under the current AZ rules, on entering a liberry...

What sword for Jabberwock?

Jerry said...

Whiplash, I call whiplash on this one. It made my neck hurt.

Inspector said...

"perhaps you two should do a little reading of prior posts/comments on this blog. You do seem to be unclear on the concept."

Will,

No, I get it. I regularly read here. I'm not suggesting that her actual position is in support of the status quo. I'm saying that this post appears to support the status quo implicitly by the fact that it is unclear about what is in fact being advocated and/or snarked at.

I'm suggesting something more along these lines:

"Hey, geniuses - you know what could make it affordable? Just don't have metal detectors at all for libraries. Let us carry there the same as we carry everywhere else. Libraries don't have magic dust in the air that makes gun carriers more dangerous. And besides, the risk of ND from all the gun handling at your checkpoint is greater than the risk averted by having a checkpoint."

Or:

"She balked at the expense of making them no-toting zones under the new law. Apparently the idea that the whole point of the bill was that they were supposed to STOP being no-toting zones hadn't occurred to her."

Something like that. My point being, you snark at x in the context of y, and it's going to look like you support z. Hopefully, that made sense.