Stop HB2666 - Allowing unrestricted carry of weapons.

[Sal316]

Bill opens schools to guns, more.

The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to let people carry weapons — including guns, grenades, rockets, mines and sawed-off shotguns — into schools, polling places and nuclear plants as long as they say they are only trying to protect themselves.

Lawmakers voted 30-16 to give preliminary approval to a measure that its sponsor crafted as a way to prevent prosecution of people who carry concealed weapons without first getting the required permit.

But the extent to which HB2666 would allow the unrestricted carrying of weapons surprised even Rep. Doug Quelland, R-Phoenix, who introduced the legislation and shepherded it through the House. He told Capitol Media Services after the vote the measure was crafted by constituents whom he did not identify.
<snip>


Who in their right mind would ever craft legislation like this? I urge all of us to write letters to the editor advocating stopping this bill and the removal from office of anyone who so grievously abdicates their responsibility to the safety and security of the state of Arizona

[Silverhair]

1. Tone down the hype.

Some of the categories of weapons that you list are illegal to posses at all. The bill can not make legal to carry, something that is illegal to even have. Grenades, sawed off shotguns, rockets, mines, etc are already illegal to have under federal law and this bill won't change that.

Nor will it make them legal to carry in places where they are illegal by other law. Federal law already governs carrying guns into schools, etc.

You are greatly overstating the case.

[Sal316]

2. Uhhh... no, I'm not. I've read the bill.

HB2666 - House Version
Subsection A - Definitions of weapons misconduct has been changed to add "with malicious intent", it now reads...

"A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly AND WITH MALICIOUS INTENT:

<snip>

B. Subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section shall not apply to a person in his dwelling, on his business premises or on real property owned or leased by that person OR IN THE ABSENCE OF DEMONSTRABLE MALICIOUS INTENT TO DO UNJUSTIFIABLE HARM TO ANOTHER PERSON.

C. Subsection A, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this section shall not apply to:
<snip>



5. ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING A DEADLY WEAPON UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND WHO CARRIES A DEADLY WEAPON FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION OR THE PROTECTION OF OTHERS, THE STATE OR THE SANCTITY OF A DWELLING UNIT, WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON IS A RESIDENT OF THAT DWELLING UNIT.

<snip>

J. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 9, 14 or 15 of this section is a class 3 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 3, 4, 8 or 13 of this section is a class 4 felony. Misconduct involving weapons WITH MALICIOUS INTENT under subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor unless the violation occurs in connection with conduct which violates the provisions of section 13-2308, subsection A, paragraph 5, section 13-2312, subsection C, section 13-3409 or section 13-3411, in which case the offense is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons under subsection A, paragraph 5, 6 or 7 of this section is a class 6 felony. Misconduct involving weapons WITH MALICIOUS INTENT under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 10 or 11 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.

<snip>

So, now weapons can be carried into schools, churches, Palo Verde Nuclear facility as long as you say you are just 'protecting yourself'. Guess the next time a kid carries a gun into a school to shoot a bully, he can be exempt because he was 'protecting himself'. Rep. Quelland also needs to come forward with who is responsible for crafting this legislation.

I'm not for banning people from owning/carrying weapons, but this goes too far and endangers public safety and also national security

[Silverhair]

3. Like I said: Tone down the hype!!

The bill states: "ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING A DEADLY WEAPON UNDER FEDERAL LAW..."

Since sawn-off shotguns, mines, rockets, grenades, are already prohibited to all people by federal law, then they would still be prohibited.

And since weapons are prohibited to all people (Except law enforcement & guards) in certain places, then they would still be prohibited.

Whenever I see hype like this I always think that a gun-grabber is trying to scare the public.

[micrometer_50]

4. Tone down your own hype.

The original poster is trying to bring attention to the changes that this bill would allow.
Your focus on that list (from the article) seems to be an attempt to ignore the concern that this change will allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon into schools, polling places, even Palo Verde.

"But what's in House Bill 2666 surprised even Rep. Doug Quelland, R-Phoenix, who introduced the legislation and shepherded it through the House. He said he had no idea the legislation, crafted by constituents he wouldn't identify, was so broad that it would provide a catchall exemption in the state's weapons laws."

The guy that introduced this bill had no idea was so broad, and won't identify who wrote it.

The original poster also addressed this point.
It bothers me that a Representative introduces legislation he doesn't understand, written by someone he won't identify.

Tone down your own hype.

[Sal316]

5. Those were my points exactly.

I know those of us on the left have an image of being 'gun-grabbers', the image put forth by the right and the NRA.

These changes are dangerous, plain and simple. There needs to be a balance between the RBKA folk and public safety and security. Plus, the fact that he didn't know it was so broad and won't say who crafted it is unbelievable. If/when I get an answer from either his office or the co-sponsors as to who wrote this, I will post it.

I have a hunch it has to do with the 'Arizona Minutemen' patrolling the border hunting Mexicans.

[Silverhair]

6. So his claim that grenades, rockets, etc wasn't hype???

Bullcrap. Look at the claim that stuff already completely illegal by federal law would somehow become legal by that bill. That is hype!!

Even under that bill you aren't going to be able to even own a grenade, let alone carry it.

It is interesting that the poster gets angry at me, rather than addressing the point that his claim that you would be able to carry grenades around is PURE BUNK!!!!!!!

Due to the hype, instead of addressing the facts, I suspect the poster of being a gun grabber.

[micrometer_50]

7. The sentence wasn't written by the original poster

It's the opening sentence quoted from the news article.

"Bill’s range opens schools to guns, more

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services"


Are you comfortable with letting anyone carry a concealed weapon
onto any school grounds?

Are you comfortable with a representative who introduces a bill he doesn't understand?

Are you comfortable with a representative who introduces lagislation
written by unidentifed constituents?

[Silverhair]

9. He could have edited it.

Or at least made a disclaimer. The fact that he didn't strongly suggests that he desires to spread a false meme.

Guns on school grounds, polling places, federal buildings, etc is ALREADY controlled by federal law. State law will have no effect on it.

Those are the points that I am calling HYPE!!!!!!

And that kind of hype is usually put forward by gun grabbers.

Get rid of the hype and I will discuss the other items.

[Sal316]

11. Again with the 'gun-grabbers'.

It was directly from the article and HB2666. I made no disclaimer because I wasn't the one who wrote it. I put the information forth for others to judge on its merits.

It is my intention to contact everyone I can to stop this bill from going through. This, the reduction in training for CCW permits, and the guns-in-bars bill that 78% of Arizonans oppose shows where the priorities of our state Legislature are.

When does the complete disregard for public safety get thrown aside for 'gun-grabbing hype'? Federal law or not, this is what is going through the Arizona State Legislature as we bitch and moan about semantics.

"Without malicious intent" is a foggy qualification.

[Silverhair]

12. Try being factual about what the bill will and won't do.

Tell the truth about the bill. i grant that is a novel concept.

In you post you put up an article with a LOT of lies in it, with no information to the contrary. It would logically appear that you want people to believe those lies and act on them. The article fit your agenda.

[Sal316]

14. Screw the article.... READ THE BILL!

The link is provided for you.

[Silverhair]

16. I am claiming that the ARTICLE is hype.

I am not defending the bill. I am saying that you have presented hype. And as soon as I see hype, I suspect an agenda.

[Sal316]

17. Then why spend time arguing about the article?

I didn't write it.

If by chance it brings attention to the legislation, good or bad, then that's fine by me.

Screw the article.
Talk legislation.

[Silverhair]

18. YOU are the one who posted the article.

I can claim the article is hype if I want to. And I have proven it is lies. Now are you saying that you are willing to use a lying article if it will forward your agenda?

[Sal316]

19. You haven't proven anything.

You've used semantics to shape your argument.

This isn't a federal bill this is a bill that will change state law.

"Gun crimes" would, in my interpretation, go to Federal court instead of County or State courts. What, then, do the chances of a successful prosecution of a firearms offense become?

This, also, will take cases involving the AZ Minutemen to Federal court.

Third, I believe it's a setup to paint Napolitano as a 'gun-grabber' to weaken her before the 2006 election.

[Silverhair]

20. The bill does NOT make them legal.

Illegal is illegal. The article said it would make them legal. The articled lied. Why did the author lie about something so obvious? I think it is because he has an agenda and doesn't care about the facts.

[Sal316]

21. Federally, yes....Locally, no.

That's the point, I believe, of this bill.

Put the onus on Federal court, Federal jurisdicition.

In AZ, as long as they're used for their intended purpose, you can get those things. We're always hearing about some person with a shed full of explosives, etc.

[Silverhair]

22. You a missing MY point.

My point is that the article is using extremist hype. It is making false statements. And whenever I encounter hype I always look for the agenda that it seeks to serve.

The law itself may or may not be a bad thing. I am not entering into that debate. The link you posted on the law didn't work, and even if it did, what that law may or may try to do is not my point. It may indeed need to be defeated. But it should be defeated with truth and not with lies. Lies are too easily found out and then your side becomes discredited. After all, because of the hype, I suspect there to be a gun-grabber agenda at work here. And I am probably right.

A reasonable, truthful approach may have won me over. Now, it will be a hard sell as I am suspicious of your side's motives. Of course, since I am not in AZ, my support or lack thereof is moot.

[Sal316]

8. This is why we can't discuss guns in this country.

Too much emotion and not enough reason.

Get off the 'gun-grabber' bit and look at the bill for what it is. No restrictions on where you can carry, CCW without a permit, and redefining where a gun can be kept on a person.

Not only that, but still the unknown of who crafted this legislation.

Changing these rules are dangerous. It puts public safety, and in the case of nuclear facilities, national security at risk.

Can we debate the merits of the legislation, or lack of it, without resorting to "Gun-grabber...Gun-Nut" type discourse?

[Silverhair]

10. Are you standing by your claim that it will enable grenades to be carried?

Address the matter factually, and you will gain more respect. Start claiming that a bill will let people carry grenades into schools and I will rightly consider it hype.

No how about addressing my point that grenades, rockets, etc are ALREADY illegal by federal law? You continue to ignore that. I suppose the reason that you ignore it is that it does not help your agenda.

[Sal316]

13. Here's the ARS definitions for prohibited and deadly weapons.

1. "Deadly weapon" means anything that is designed for lethal use. The term includes a firearm.



7. "Prohibited weapon" means, but does not include fireworks imported, distributed or used in compliance with state laws or local ordinances, any propellant, propellant actuated devices or propellant actuated industrial tools that are manufactured, imported or distributed for their intended purposes or a device that is commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination, including any of the following:

(a) Explosive, incendiary or poison gas:

(i) Bomb.

(ii) Grenade.

(iii) Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces.

(iv) Mine.

(b) Device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.

(c) Firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

(d) Rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen inches, or shotgun with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches, or any firearm that is made from a rifle or shotgun and that, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

(e) Instrument, including a nunchaku, that consists of two or more sticks, clubs, bars or rods to be used as handles, connected by a rope, cord, wire or chain, in the design of a weapon used in connection with the practice of a system of self-defense.

(f) Breakable container that contains a flammable liquid with a flash point of one hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less and that has a wick or similar device capable of being ignited.

(g) Chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials, including dry ice, that are placed in a sealed or unsealed container for the purpose of generating a gas to cause a mechanical failure, rupture or bursting of the container.

(h) Combination of parts or materials that is designed and intended for use in making or converting a device into an item set forth in subdivision (a) or (f) of this paragraph.



Sounds to me that the "means, but does not include" statement is a loophole big enough to drive an H2 through.

[Silverhair]

15. Those are all FORBIDDEN!!!

Rand Weaver had hundreds of FBI & BATF and local law after him, his son was killed, and his unarmed wife was shot by an FBI sniper while holding a baby in her arms because he cut a couple of shotguns down to under 18 inches. And the raid in Waco was over supposed violations of that list. The feds take that list real seriously.

There are NO loopholes in that forbidden list.

And the bill that you are crying about won't make them legal.

There may be other problems with the bill, but the hype you put forward IS NOT among them.

[micrometer_50]

23. Update: Legislator drops bill with gun protections

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/63788.php


Update: Legislator drops bill with gun protections


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PHOENIX - A legislator said Wednesday he killed his
own bill on weapons misconduct, saying it went too
far by providing broad exemptions that could bar
state prosecution of people carrying guns into
schools and other prohibited sites for protection.