The Arizona Legislature has passed, and Governor Jan Brewer is rumored to have already signed into law (we can't confirm this just yet), Senate Bill 1113, which allows law-abiding handgun carry permit holders to bring their firearm into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol by the drink. There are a few restrictions, however:
1. The firearm must be concealed.
2. The permit holder may not drink alcohol while carrying.
3. The establishment may ban firearms by posting a sign stating that fact in a specified location.
Failure to abide by these rules is a class 3 misdemeanor.
Naturally, the anti-gun Chicken Littles are screeching bloody murder about the new law, including online commenter RBJohnson of Minnesota, who opined in part:
"I guess I'll be back in Arizona when/if this bill is repealed. No way I'm bringing myself, much less my wife and kids, into a situation where drunks are even allowed to carry guns, much less encouraged to do so.
To the people who are here saying they've been in states with similar laws without a problem, good for you. Not a choice I'll be making."
(We don't have the heart to clue Mr. Johnson in on the fact that Minnesota has never banned carry permit holders from bars and restaurants, and that the 60,000 or so law-abiding people who have obtained their permits since the state went "shall-issue" in 2003 haven't caused any problems whatsoever in such establishments. We suppose ol' Mr. Johnson had better immediately begin searching for a more Socialist, freedom-sapping state in which to reside. May we recommend Illinois?)
The Legislature also passed, and Governor Brewer is expected to sign:
Senate Bill 1168, which "prevents any private or public employer, property owner, etc. from banning any person from keeping a firearm in a locked vehicle in a parking area on the property, with specific, limited exceptions."
Senate Bill 1243, which "establishes a justification defense for referring to, showing, or grasping a firearm in a defensive manner when confronted with physical or deadly force."
and Senate Bill 1449, which "would make the 2006 Castle Doctrine/Burden of Proof changes retroactively applicable to all cases pending at the time of passage that the defendant had not pled guilty to. Similar to a bill that the previous Governor vetoed."
(All bill descriptions are from the good folks at the Arizona Citizens' Defense League, an all-volunteer organization of regular people devoted to preserving and expanding gun rights in Arizona. They're a good bunch; we know because we're a member.)
This last bill is vitally important in the case of Harold Fish, a retired schoolteacher who used deadly force to defend himself against an assault by a man named Grant Kuenzli and his three aggressive dogs while on a hiking trail in 2004. Fish was not permitted to use the applicable self-defense burden of proof statute in his defense (even though it became law while his trial was being held), and his attorney was not allowed to present evidence of "at least 10 other incidents in which Kuenzli had gotten violent with people, charged them in a manner similar to Fish's description and even assaulted them. Some of the incidents involved dogs."
There were many other procedural problems in the prosecution of Fish, as evidenced by the fact that the Arizona Court of Appeals has just yesterday thrown out his conviction and ordered a new trial in the case. It is hoped that the Coconino County Attorney will just decline to retry the case, rather than put an innocent man through a second trial.
All in all, a fantastic and special day for rights, especially gun rights, in sunny Arizona.
Special thanks again must go to the Dave Kopp, Fred Dahnke and the rest of the leaders at the AZCDL for their tireless work in helping to pass this legislation. If you're an Arizona gun owner and are not a member, shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Utterly fantastic. Way to go, Arizona: show `em you're not just a hotter California -- you're way, way better.
Gun Control: Keeping Them In Normal People’s Hands!: http://tinyurl.com/lcx2cv
I always appreciate how the Brady types suggest that a law is going to permit something that it expressly prohibits--in this case, carrying while drunk.
Reminds me of my class, where the instructor introduced the topic with a sigh and "we shouldn't have to discuss this." He hardly had to say anything more!
Post a Comment