Thursday, May 12, 2016

AZ: Governor Ducey Vetoes HB 2524, Protection Against Bloomberg Referendum

For two years, the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AZCDL) has been pushing to pass a bill to enact a compact between states.  The purpose of the bill is to prevent a billionaire funded referendum from imposing Universal Background Checks (UBC), a precursor to firearms registration in Arizona.  Compacts between the states take precedence over state statutes; if another state signed on the the Compact created by SB2524, a Bloomberg funded referendum would not be able to impose UBCs on Arizona.  That, at least, is the theory.

A few weeks ago, SB2524 passed the Arizona legislature. If it had become law, and another state agreed to the compact,  it would have prevented Arizona from enacting firearm transfer requirements that are more restrictive than federal law.  Yesterday, 10 May, Governor Ducey vetoed the bill.

It is hard to understand why.  The compact would only have gone into effect if another state signed on, and would only have required that Arizona restrictions on firearm transfers be no stricter than federal law.  In the veto letter(pdf), Governor Ducey says that he sees no reason to tie Arizona decisions about firearms to another state.
 “I see no reason for Arizona to tie ourselves to other states’ decisions on public policy relating to the transfer of firearms.  We know what’s best for our state, and I trust the citizens of Arizona and their elected leaders to continue to make wise decisions to protect our Second Amendment rights, whenever and wherever those rights are infringed.”
Either he does not believe that the Bloomberg referendum is a serious threat, he has been influenced by Bloomberg lobbiests, or he sincerely believes that Arizona should not tie its legislative hands for future firearms legislation.

None of those options bode well for the future of firearms law reform in Arizona.

On the same day, Governor Ducey signed two bills that help to restore Second Amendment rights in Arizona.  HB 2338 stops educational institutions from banning the possession or carry of firearms on public right of ways that pass near or through the educational institution.  SB 1266 allows for enforcement of the state preemption statutes.  Some local governments have been ignoring the preemption law because there were no penalties provided.  SB 1266 provides for penalties so that the preemption statute can be enforced.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Excuse me but I can not see how tying Arizona to any other state benefits Arizona. The federal constitution guarantees every state an individual right to a republican form of government. it also prevents two or more states from joining together without federal congressional approval. We in Arizona do not need any other states approval to do what we the voters decide to do. If this issue was backed by the NRA it is just another way the NRA wastes money on useless legislation efforts. the more money the NRA spends on useless effort the more press they get and the less effective their efforts are. If the NRA were to put the basic issues of the second and tenth amendments on trial the issue would be settled and the NRA would be out of business. Enforcing the written words is the issue, nothing else matters. we do not need law that allow women to carry concealed in a purse, but the NRA pushed that useless law because it was useless and pointless and the provision was already written in the Arizona constitution from the start. Lawyers and politicians rarely do any research to know what laws already exist. They will use any issue to get publicity to make themselves look good, when they are actually proving themselves incompetent. It has always been legal for a woman in Arizona to carry a loaded weapon in her purse. we have many other laws the legislature should be looking at to repeal instead of wasting time on passing unnecessary laws. When I had my FFL Arizona had the fewest gun laws on the books of any state. The second amendment was addressed in the Arizona constitution from the beginning that means that it is a states rights issue under the tenth amendment of the bill of rights in the federal constitution On the other hand the California state constitution has no reference to the second amendment, what this mean is the California State legislature has no authority to address second amendment issues yet California has the highest number of second amendment issue laws of all the other states. What this means in very technical points of law is that NOT ONE CALIFORNIA SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE LAW IS VALID. If it is not in the states constitution the legislature has no jurisdictional authority to address the issue. therefore it can not pass second amendment law issues. Read and understand what the tenth amendment says. No state has the authority to add to or take away from any thing that is covered in the federal constitution. because no state has the authority to amend the federal constitution. Shall not be infringed is in the second amendment of the federal constitution, therefore all states are required to enforce what it says according to the tenth amendment. the same in reverse, the word marriage is not in the federal constitution, therefore marriage is a states rights issue when the word marriage exists in the state constitution. There is no federal authority to address the issue of marriage in the congress or in the federal courts. If we want our constitution back and in full force every body needs to read it and understand it for themselves. Most competent people can read the United States Constitution in less than half an hour. it take more time to read the 63 million laws, acts and regulations that conflict with our constitution that are in conflict and passed by idiots we have elected. If you want to save our country start reading the constitution and get back into your church. We HAE FREEDOM OF RELIGION NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. WHY DO THESE ATTORNEYS NEVER READ THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT SAYS GAYS HAVE NO SPECIAL RIGHTS?