That's our preferred standard for any type of private property restrictions. Private property is best regulated through the law of trespass. Assuming some states are forced to change their laws in the near future, we'll attempt to use that window to get the best possible law for gun owners. That's exactly what happened in Illinois after the Shepard/Moore decision.Originally Posted by AlwaysLearning
The Arizona legislature just quietly did this. Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3102 (Misconduct Involving Weapons, https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?...s/13/03101.htm) covers all manner of sins, but in relevant part (subsection (A)(10) prohibits:
"Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01"
Up until the last legislative session, "public establishment" and "public event" were not defined anywhere in Arizona statutory law, and no case law clarified the issue. The only thing I was able to find was a written opinion drafted by the Attorney General in the 1970s (which is not controlling authority for any court) indicating a belief that the Department of Economic Security (welfare office) constituted a "public establishment."
However, within the past year, subsections (N)(2) and (N)(3) have been added to the Misconduct Involving Weapons statute:
"'Public establishment' means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state."
"'Public event' means a specifically named or sponsored event of limited duration that is either conducted by a public entity or conducted by a private entity with a permit or license granted by a public entity. Public event does not include an unsponsored gathering of people in a public place."
This clarification eliminates the prosecution's ability to argue that a plain-language reading of "public establishment" to include grocery stores, shopping malls, or other private businesses. My interpretation* of this change is that "no weapons allowed" signs in Arizona, with the exception of properly placed signs at establishments that serve alcohol and prohibit firearms pursuant to A.R.S. 4-229(A) and (B), have no legal authority absent some sort of request to leave by an owner/owner's agent...they essentially have the same legal authority as a club policy that prohibits shorts or a restaurant dress code that requires a tie.
*I am not your lawyer and I am not giving you legal advice
Sadly, that seems to happen to with the best of our posts. I've gotten in the habit of copying some posts to a text document before posting just to be safe, but I invariably let my guard down and that is when it I lose posts when I hit submit.
As usual too late for me to edit my previous message but I do want to stress that I will take any victory that we could get, but I thought that the reference requirement in the way that they are applied are excessive— especially when they require that you have references from your own county or town when in today's modern world the people who could and would vouch for you might not necessarily live in the same area.
Minor quibble: She was kowtowing to Mike Bloomberg. Gillibrand was, at least, honest about she would change her positions depending on the electorate. It was a little refreshing that she admitted that the only thing she believed in was winning elections.
Her 2008 letter to us was pretty unequivocal: https://www.newsweek.com/nra-publish...-1441881?amp=1
That is exactly correct. I was lucky that my county was not strict on time lines for knowing the references. Also, I did have folks in my town who served and were respectable. One was a major real estate developer, quite well known, who lived neaby (but in a much fancy area), a wife of a State trooper officer, a retired DOD intelligence officer - all who could attest to me being legit.
The issue of being in your town is troublesome for some as pointed out, it may be a small area and you may not know four in that locale. One way to do it is to join the local clubs- a pain and expensive.
We will see how expansive the ruling is. It annoys me that the ruling take so long to issue, I suppose there is significant back and forth. Some suggest horse trading on abortion rights within their inner circle but some scholars say that they don't do such trading (yeah, right!). Roberts will play the Kennedy balancing role, I would think.
I got a comment in the NY Times that both set of liberty denies (no choice, no guns) should STFU for the middle of the country that supports reasonable choice and reasonable gun rights and screw you, absolutists. You can howl in the middle of the square.
When I got my permit in Otsego county it was pretty rough, and I grew up there. I had to have 3 references I had known for 5 years, who lived in my county or a connected one.
I was outright told no by a very close family friend, because he felt it would invite more scrutiny on him - a normal non criminal family dude. There is a real sense of "the government/cops are out to get you" among regular people in central NY. Especially those with less money.
My references had to fill out a form about who they are, what they thought of me. Then have it signed by a notory. In duplicate. Of course months later I had a phone interview with a detective, and months later still I eventually was approved for my unrestricted carry permit. It was nothing like my experience in Florida.
If this goes our way, I see more odd admin requirements in the application process.
This is why I find any and all restrictions on the second amendment to be unreasonable. Yes, even mentally challenged former felons should be allowed to own guns. If someone is so dangerous that they can’t be entrusted to own a gun, then society shouldn’t allow them to freely walk around where they might sharpen a toothbrush on a sidewalk and use it to stab children on a train or steal a truck and drive it into a crowd.
The idea of any kind of restrictions is ridiculous to me. Once we start down the “reasonable and common sense” restrictions path we enter the world of the subjective where to politicians in NYC, the above are reasonable restrictions. As William Aprill always said, don’t impose your world view onto others, and what you think is reasonable may only go 1% as far as the anti-gunners.
Personally, I’ll take my second amendment uninfringed, please. Like the text of the amendment literally reads.
This type of naive absolutism is not helpful to 2A rights.
It just makes 2A people sound ridiculous.
How many felons and violent mentally ill individuals have you personally interacted with ?
There are absolutely people who should not have access to guns (or other potentially dangerous tools) and the resources for incarceration and institutionalization are finite. Nor would a society that could or would preventatively detain all such individuals be “free” for everyone else.
Last edited by HCM; 11-06-2021 at 10:34 AM.
Reply With Quote