Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

shadowrider

(4,941 posts)
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:16 AM Apr 2012

On Brewer's desk: bill to ease gun limits in public buildings (Arizona)

PHOENIX - Guns in public buildings are just a Jan Brewer signature away from being legal, for the second time in two years.

On a 19-11 vote, the Senate on Thursday approved overriding existing laws that say governments need only to post a sign at the entrance of a public building to make it illegal for visitors to enter when armed.

HB 2729 would still allow government agencies to keep their buildings off-limits to guns, but only if they install metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances.

The vote sends the bill to the governor, who vetoed a similar measure last year.

But Brewer, who has pronounced herself a strong proponent of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, said that veto was not because she was against the concept. Instead, the governor said the wording was flawed and could cause potential confusion about exactly where people could and could not bring their weapons.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/on-brewer-s-desk-bill-to-ease-gun-limits-in/article_78feda09-c391-5c59-a3a7-8f9664f62d0f.html

She's doing it the right way. You want no guns in a government building, fine. Just protect everyone inside from the lone madman who, before, could just walk in and open fire on a target rich environment.


40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On Brewer's desk: bill to ease gun limits in public buildings (Arizona) (Original Post) shadowrider Apr 2012 OP
"a target rich environment" Kolesar Apr 2012 #1
He's **obviously** referring to the world view Simo 1939_1940 Apr 2012 #2
Your comprehension skills need work...eom Kolesar Apr 2012 #7
This is a pretty standard phrase... Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #12
The VT shooter had a target rich environment (Read: Gun Free) shadowrider Apr 2012 #3
worked out good for the 2A haters. ileus Apr 2012 #9
Well, they got exactly what they wanted. krispos42 Apr 2012 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author Callisto32 Apr 2012 #33
That phrase is shorthand. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #32
Hopefully they'd make provision for lockers, too Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #4
People are waiting outside for you with a gun Kolesar Apr 2012 #6
More to do with preparedness Glaug-Eldare Apr 2012 #10
Where did he say that AH1Apache Apr 2012 #11
If it hurts, you don't have to participate here...eom Kolesar Apr 2012 #14
Projecting much? AH1Apache Apr 2012 #15
Post removed Post removed Apr 2012 #34
And the backlash cometh AH1Apache Apr 2012 #5
Why should the people be restricted access at their buildings. ileus Apr 2012 #8
I don't understand the question to be honest. shadowrider Apr 2012 #20
Why should people carry a gun in a public building? COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #21
Because there is nothing special about them... ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #22
Nothing except for the possibility that in gov't buildings COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #26
And those "unbalanced" foilks will obey the no guns signs of course DonP Apr 2012 #27
No, that's why courthouses have security to check COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #30
Not all courthouses.... Callisto32 Apr 2012 #35
Funny how 'public buildings' turned into 'govt buildings', which turned into 'courthouses'. X_Digger Apr 2012 #38
Two problems with your question. PavePusher Apr 2012 #39
Sounds like a good reason to have some self defense tools with you. ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #28
I love it when the rhetoric always turns to self defense. COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #31
Data suggest you are wrong. Callisto32 Apr 2012 #36
Feel free to point me to such data COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #40
Feel free to explain how you jumped to that conclusion. ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #37
doesn't sound mutally exclulive to me gejohnston Apr 2012 #23
First Jan Brewer supporter safeinOhio Apr 2012 #16
I support her AH1Apache Apr 2012 #17
Looks more like gejohnston Apr 2012 #18
Where did I say I support her? Show me the post pls. shadowrider Apr 2012 #19
You didn't say that in your post. safeinOhio Apr 2012 #24
No, your insinuation was quite evident. PavePusher Apr 2012 #25
Vetoed mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #29

Simo 1939_1940

(768 posts)
2. He's **obviously** referring to the world view
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:27 AM
Apr 2012

of mass murderers.

But don't let an opportunity to spin get away from you now.

Glaug-Eldare

(1,089 posts)
12. This is a pretty standard phrase...
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:19 PM
Apr 2012

We use it frequently as a sarcastic reference to the effects of "gun-free zones" on criminals, as opposed to law-abiding citizens. No murderous intent is meant at all, trust me.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
13. Well, they got exactly what they wanted.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:36 PM
Apr 2012

Mental-health history check, one-handgun-a-month limit, 10-round-magazine limit, no teachers or students allowed to carry on campus.

and because it didn't work, it's somebody else's fault.

Response to krispos42 (Reply #13)

Callisto32

(2,997 posts)
32. That phrase is shorthand.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:45 AM
Apr 2012

It means "a place that contains a group of people who can be easily victimized by a person wielding 100+ year old technology, because the administration...somewhere, decided that its placebo of 'gun free zone' would make them all feel better, despite the empirical evidence indicating that those bent on mass murder and the violation of Natural Law will give not one whit about statutory law or regulation."

"Target rich environment" takes a hell of a lot less keystrokes.

English, what an awesome language.

Glaug-Eldare

(1,089 posts)
4. Hopefully they'd make provision for lockers, too
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:01 PM
Apr 2012

so you can retrieve your gun when leaving the building. In the words of Chris Rock:

“Never go to (public buildings) with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those (people) waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one.”

Glaug-Eldare

(1,089 posts)
10. More to do with preparedness
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:17 PM
Apr 2012

I carry a Leatherman tool around religiously (we are still fighting to get handgun permits issued in this state) -- I haven't gone outside without it for about three years, except for a handful of times when I knew I'd have to go through a security checkpoint. If I could've rented a locker, or had a guard put it away for me, I would've been much happier to be able to resume my life that much more quickly and easily. Also worth mentioning that one time I went to the county courthouse, I forgot to leave it in my car, and had to walk quite a ways back to my car because there was no way to store it at the checkpoint.

 

AH1Apache

(502 posts)
11. Where did he say that
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 12:18 PM
Apr 2012

He posted a quote by Chris Rock, but we've come to expect crap like this from the likes of the anti gun crowd.

 

AH1Apache

(502 posts)
15. Projecting much?
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:10 PM
Apr 2012

Where did I say it hurts? All I said was that the poster was quoting Chris Rock and that we've come to expect comments like yours from the anti gun crowd.

Response to Kolesar (Reply #6)

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
22. Because there is nothing special about them...
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:02 PM
Apr 2012

... that would suggest they be excluded from being treated like any other unsecured building.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
26. Nothing except for the possibility that in gov't buildings
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 05:55 PM
Apr 2012

there are lot of people whom some unbalanced folks think of as 'their enemies'.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
27. And those "unbalanced" foilks will obey the no guns signs of course
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 06:03 PM
Apr 2012

Just like Cho realized that V Tech was a totally gun free campus.

Unbalanced people, unlike the vast majority of CCW permit holders, don't have a great track record of obeying signs and gun bans.

It's about as logical as trying to control crime by disarming all the law abiding citizens.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
30. No, that's why courthouses have security to check
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:18 AM
Apr 2012

for weapons. Why invite the crazies to bring their guns with them?>

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
38. Funny how 'public buildings' turned into 'govt buildings', which turned into 'courthouses'.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 02:02 PM
Apr 2012

Most courthouses have physical security. Few government buildings do.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
39. Two problems with your question.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 02:54 PM
Apr 2012

1. Crazies don't care about invitations.

2. Not all who carry a sidearm are crazies. Not by a wide margin.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
28. Sounds like a good reason to have some self defense tools with you.
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 11:33 PM
Apr 2012

If the building tends to be a place of conflict similar to court houses, I have no problem with armed guards and metal detectors disarming everyone on the way in just like the court houses. However, the common methods of using signs to disarm everyone except the trouble makers makes no sense since the trouble makers are the ones who need to be disarmed first.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
31. I love it when the rhetoric always turns to self defense.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 08:20 AM
Apr 2012

I would suggest that, unless you have some prior experience with shooting at people you are probably going to be more of a danger to yourself and/or others than to a gun-wielding nut.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
37. Feel free to explain how you jumped to that conclusion.
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:25 AM
Apr 2012

You statement suggests you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
23. doesn't sound mutally exclulive to me
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 07:21 PM
Apr 2012

he is asking why should you be prevented from
you are asking why one would or should.

The answer to your question depends on the individual circumstance.
My circumstance, there is no reason for me to.
A lady filing a restraining order, would have more reason. But being Florida, hope she can get a parking space where the deputies (who operate the metal detectors) at the door could come to her rescue if needed.
One of my county commissioners has had threats on his life. Same as reason number two.

 

AH1Apache

(502 posts)
17. I support her
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:21 PM
Apr 2012

on this issue, but I certainly don't support her on just about everything else as I'm sure most other people in this group don't support her on most of the issues.
Your post has a tinge of dishonesty to it.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
18. Looks more like
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 01:27 PM
Apr 2012

DUer giving Brewer a star and a pat on the head for doing something that isn't stupid. Are you saying Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders (and Thom Hartmann and Pat Buchanan for that matter) should not agree on corporate welfare, empire, the fed? Ron Paul is full of shit on pretty much everything else.

safeinOhio

(32,532 posts)
24. You didn't say that in your post.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:55 PM
Apr 2012

Only praise no caveat posted.

I have posted positive actions by republicans and have always added it being unusual.

Sorry, most likely a Freudian, type, slip on your part.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»On Brewer's desk: bill to...