The 2016 Legislative session is officially over. The status and summary of bills that AzCDL monitored this session can be found on our Bill Tracking page.
The Good News
In addition to stopping almost a dozen bad firearms related bills from progressing through the Legislature, AzCDL was instrumental in getting the following bills through both chambers of the Legislature and to the Governor’s desk where they were signed into law.
HB 2224, the AzCDL-requested bill that prohibits state or local governments from requiring any fee, tax, etc. on the private transfer of firearms.
HB 2338, the AzCDL-requested bill that prohibits the governing boards of educational institutions from banning firearms on public rights of way, such as city streets and sidewalks that happen to pass through campuses.
SB 1266 puts teeth into the preemption statutes by allowing for civil actions when state agencies, counties, cities, etc. disregard the law.
SB 1487 requires the Arizona Attorney General to investigate local ordinances that violate Arizona’s Constitution or state law.
The Bad News
For several years we have been pushing legislation to end Arizona’s official policy of allowing armed criminals to enter government buildings through the use of impotent “no weapons” signs as their only means of security. As long as the bad guys can come and go at will in public facilities, we believe all law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves. This year’s bill was SB 1257 which said in essence that if state and local governments’ only means of security was a cardboard sign, then CCW permit holders should not be disarmed when entering. At the request of the Governor’s staff, SB 1257 was amended in the House. However seeing that the bill only needed one more floor vote to pass out of the Legislature, his staff then lobbied the Senate to kill the bill. We learned our lesson – cooperating with this Governor is not necessarily a good thing.
We were able to get this year’s version of our interstate firearms compact bill, HB 2524, through both chambers of the Legislature but it was vetoed by Governor Ducey. You may recall that last year, after Bloomberg’s lobbyists appeared at the Capitol, the compact bill was buried in the Senate Rules Committee while the clock ran out on the session.
HB 2524 would have established an interstate compact between Arizona and other states that prevented the member states from enacting firearms transfer requirements more restrictive than existing federal law. Enactment of HB 2524 would have neutralized Bloomberg’s ballot measure to criminalize private firearms transfers, which he has promised to file in Arizona.
In 2014, after passing a “universal background check” ballot measure in Washington, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization bragged that Nevada, Maine and Arizona were next. In Nevada and Maine the groundwork is completed. They will have “universal background check” measures on their November ballots. Bloomberg has less than 2 months to accomplish the same thing here in Arizona. We must operate on the assumption that it will happen and be prepared to not just fight it, but to stop it from becoming the law in Arizona.
With the veto of HB 2524, legislative remedies are no longer available. We can only stop him at the ballot box. If Bloomberg’s ballot measure passes, Arizona’s Constitution prevents it from being overturned by a subsequent Legislature.
From what we’ve seen happen in Washington, Nevada and Maine, we cannot count on outside help. The reality is that we must fight this battle ourselves. AzCDL is self-funded and operates from the generosity of our members. To maintain our independence we are unaffiliated. We don’t receive corporate grants or have a rich sugar daddy hiding in the shadows. Your donations determine if we succeed or fail. In order to win this, we are going to need your support to help us spread the word. When the next fund raising letter hits your inbox, please remember that we can only defeat Bloomberg with your help.
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 © 2016 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.
And don’cha think Bloomberg and his Statist minions will be visiting other States, as well?
Count on it!
(from Joe @ The View From North Central Idaho)
An attack on abortion rights, for example, produces a far greater outcry and resistance than the successful attack on habeas corpus and due process. President Obama was able to declare his power to execute citizens by executive branch decision alone without due process and conviction in court, and it produced barely audible protest.
*Historically, a government that can, without due process, throw a citizen into a dungeon or summarily execute him is considered to be a tyranny, not a democracy. By any historical definition, the United States today is a tyranny.
Paul Craig Roberts
Does The United States Still Exist?
An address delivered to the Libertarian Party of Florida on March 23, 2016 in Destin, Florida
Remember: Why Boomershoot? Insurance against tyranny.—Joe]
Re: *Historically (above)
SOMEONE had to say it! – Guffaw
…are forever doomed to have George Santayana quoted to them!
From my friend Borepatch:
From Victor Davis Hanson:
And I’ll conclude with a spoiler from his finish because I think it’s so profound. Describing the fall of Rome to a band of thugs after a much smaller Roman Republic had defeated much larger and more dangerous threats:
“Fast forward to the 5th century AD, is this the Roman Republic, 1/4 of Italy? No. It now encompasses 70 million people, from Mesopotamia in the East to the Atlantic ocean in the West, to above Hadrian’s Wall in the North to the Sahara Desert in the South, one million square miles. And they’re attacked, not by a formidable power, the inheritor of classical military science like Hannibal, but a thug like Atilla with some Huns and Visigoths and Vandals. By any measure, the threat was nothing compared to the threat that Romans faced when it was much, much smaller. But why in the world could they not defend themselves….?
The answer is…in 216 BC a Roman knew what it was to be a Roman. And they were under no illusions that they had to be perfect to be good. All they believed was they had an illustrious tradition that was better than alternative and could be better even more…In 450 AD I don’t think the average person who lived under the Roman Empire…knew what it was to be a Roman citizen, he did not believe that it was any better than the alternative. And when that happens in history, history is cruel, it gives nobody a pass. If you cease to believe that your country’s exceptional and has a noble tradition, and it is good without without being perfect, and it’s better than the alternative – If you cease to believe that! – there’s no reason for you to continue, and history says you won’t. And you don’t.”
Can we learn and change course? Or are we doomed to travel that road once more?
It’s a long but excellent talk at the link, full of insight.
Upon reading this, my memory went back to Dr. Smith teaching Western Civ 101, in front of 300+ horny Freshmen and Sophomores, in 1970. (Yep, a long time ago.)
He said The Fall of The Roman Empire was not facilitated by the attacks of the Barbarians from the North, but rather initiated by the Roman people themselves. It seemed they no longer cared about order, morality and law, but fell to (in his words)
“Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!”
Followed by the cheers, yelps and claps of the hormonal underclassmen.
And here we are, two or three generations into that same mindset. “What’s in it for me?”
I saw a blip on FB a week-or-so-ago (which I unfortunately was unable to refind on The Internet) wherein students at a rally for Senator Bernie Sanders were shown the following quote, and asked to comment on it:
“Ask not what your Country can do for you; ask what you can do for your Country.”
And commentary ranged from it must have been a quote from Donald Trump, to Adolf Hitler!
Those who fail to learn from history…
The barbarians are at the gate, and also already inside – just waiting…
Despite using annoying “gun violence” language, this CNN article brings the good news that mental health professionals aren’t likely to sit still for Obama administration attempts to label every mentally ill person as too dangerous to own a firearm. With statistics, even!
I know there is a meme out there wherein the gummint is actively pursuing all avenues to make firearms ownership difficult, complex, and ne’er impossible.
I believe this to be true.
However (see above).
Associate Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away.
Having said this (from The Wall Street Journal)…
Justice Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday at the age of 79, will be remembered as one of the court’s most influential, trenchant and controversial voices. Below are a few outtakes from some of the more influential and notable opinions from his storied, 30-year career on the court.
•D.C. v. Heller (2008) By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns, ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms in one’s home. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
• Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) The court ruled that the government couldn’t use thermal imaging technology to detect a suspected marijuana-growing operation without a warrant. Justice Scalia wrote that the use of sense-enhancing technology not in public use to gain information within the home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house…That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no “significant” compromise of the homeowner’s privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.
• Printz v. U.S. (1997) The court held, 5-4, that a federal law requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun purchases was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer federal programs.
Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
• Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) The court ruled 6-3 that public schools could randomly drug test student athletes. Justice Scalia wrote that the privacy interests compromised by giving urine samples under the district’s policy were negligible.
Just as when the government conducts a search in its capacity as employer (a warrantless search of an absent employee’s desk to obtain an urgently needed file, for example), the relevant question is whether that intrusion upon privacy is one that a reasonable employer might engage in, see O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987); so also when the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant question is whether the search is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake. Given the findings of need made by the District Court, we conclude that in the present case it is.
• RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992) Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which the court struck down St. Paul, Minn.’s crime banning “hate-crime,” for violating the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.In so doing, the court tossed aside charges against a group of teenagers that burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family.
The dispositive question in this case, therefore, is whether content discrimination is reasonably necessary to achieve St. Paul’s [p396] compelling interests; it plainly is not. An ordinance not limited to the favored topics, for example, would have precisely the same beneficial effect. In fact, the only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of displaying the city council’s special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out. [n8] That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. The politicians of St. Paul are entitled to express that hostility — but not through the means of imposing unique limitations upon speakers who (however benightedly) disagree.
* * * *
Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.
The Internet is rife with both praise and derision for this Justice. I shan’t post the hateful texts here. There is Great Fear amongst the conservative and libertarian elements of society that without his swing vote, and Constitutionally-measured opinions, that ‘we’ (civil libertarians, gun owners/carriers, and American Society at large) are doomed. Doomed to the progressive, post-Constitution era of further governmental intrusion on rights, and final loss of the America in which we were raised.
His body wasn’t even cold, when The President announced he would find a suitable replacement, and (some) Republicans suggested The Senate block ANY appointment for the next eleven months (until the next President could be sworn in)!
In other words, politics as usual.
God Save The United States Of America (while I’m still allowed to post this!)
(Nick Otto/For The Washington Post)
FRESNO, Calif. — While officers raced to a recent 911 call about a man threatening his ex-girlfriend, a police operator in headquarters consulted software that scored the suspect’s potential for violence the way a bank might run a credit report.The program scoured billions of data points, including arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches and the man’s social- media postings. It calculated his threat level as the highest of three color-coded scores: a bright red warning.The man had a firearm conviction and gang associations, so out of caution police called a negotiator. The suspect surrendered, and police said the intelligence helped them make the right call — it turned out he had a gun. (…)
Another twist on ‘the machine’ from TV’s Person of Interest. Not video or audio surveillance, but data-mining to determine if a
subject suspect person-of-interest is a potential danger.I wonder if it finds blog posts and comments and scores them with regard to potential danger, based on a peaceful expression of concern for governmental abuses?Guess I’m worthy of a bright red warning…h/t Liberty Headlines
Yep, I bit the bullet and installed it.
I also followed Borepatch‘s advice, with regard to change the security settings.
Thus far (Day Three) it seems to work alright. I previously was using Windows 7 Home, which I LOVED! Of course, not unlike my ancient (three-year-old) Android cellular telephone, I was advised it would no longer be supported (as of some date).
So, I updated that, as well. (I paid it off. WTH!)
And, regardless my changing the security settings, I’m certain Microsoft will continue to follow my perusal of the Internet, and diligently pass along what it finds to governmental and corporate entities.
It’s already disconcerting that my new Samsung Galaxy Note 5 seems not only to know where I am in space, but remembers where I have been previously, and makes recommendations regarding where to go next!
(Note to self – Windows 10 resembles Android! Who knew?)
The Singularity isn’t far off, and I expect Cortana to ask me, “What are you doing, Guffaw?” any day now.
The times – they are a changin’.
The other day I was playing with settings in WordPress, thinking about making some stylistic changes to the GiA blog.
And I hit a wrong key. Or something…
FIRST, I saw my blog, with pictures of carrots instead of cacti! Then, I noticed many of the staples of my blog page missing.
And I had to get to a doctor’s appointment!
SO, I posted a hurried apology and left.
And late that night, I was able to get GiA reconfigured back to her former glory – well, about 85% of it.
WHAT A PITA!
As to the next part – do I bother to tweak it back to the original, or do I just go ahead and move on to my ‘improvements’?
Who knows? I’ll figure it out.
We get what we pay for! :-P
As of Friday a new California law took effect that will allow the police to seize private, legally-owned weapons for up to three weeks without charges or allowing the citizen to contest the seizure. With one state down is your state next?
Are we surprised?
Between the IRS seizing assets making you prove you don’t owe, and they are rightfully yours, and the wealth of asset forfeitures, NO, I am NOT surprised.
Worried and angry? YES!
Soon coming to a State near you?
Billy Shakespeare said that.
I’d a recent experience, wherein I left a blog post comment @ one of my blogfriend’s™ blogs. A few minutes later, it occurred to me that I’d addressed him by someone else’s name!
And there was no method in his blogging software by which I could make a correction.
(I did go back and make a second comment, apologizing.)
This reminded me of a year-or-so ago, when a kind soul sent me a few dollars on my sidebar Paypal link. (hint, hint). It was late, I was preparing to retire, and had taken my evening meds. (HALF of the medication I am prescribed has possible side effects of memory loss!)
And I thanked him profusely, using a wrong name!
Then, I sent him another email, apologizing. Hopefully, I got it right the second time(?) I’ve not heard from him ever again.
At least, in the few significant personal relationships I’ve had in my lifetime with the opposite sex, I’ve not uttered another woman’s name whilst in flagrante delicto!
I don’t think? I wasn’t on this kind of medication, then…
I don’t know…