Gov. Brewer Vetoes SB 1467

The Arizona Republic reports that Governor Brewer has vetoed SB 1467, citing vagueness in defining “public right-of-way”.

That said, the definition is somewhat vague. A.R.S. § 9-461 defines “right-of-way” as “any public right-of-way and includes any area required for public use pursuant to any general or specific plan”. Somewhat circular reasoning.

Naturally, all the anti-rights folks (both on-campus and off) are focusing on unexplained statements1, emotional claims, and irrelevant refererences to the incident where Congresswoman Giffords and others were shot2 as that incident and empowering the law-abiding to lawfully carry, if they choose, on public areas of a campus have essentially nothing to do with each other. Go figure.

The Arizona Republic also provided some interesting information:

Brewer’s office was inundated with calls about the bill.

Between April 7 and April 13, the Governor’s Office of Constituent Services received 904 calls, letters and faxes in support of SB 1467 and 951 in opposition to it, a Brewer spokeswoman said.

It’s rare to get actual quantitative information about support/opposition to a bill. While it’s unlikely that the absolute number of support/opposition letters had any direct bearing on the governor’s decision, it’s still nice to get some numbers of what was received by her office. Although I oppose the governor’s veto, the fact that this information was released is a good thing. Well done!

In addition, the governor vetoed the absurd “birther” bill that the legislature sent to her desk. Again, well done. The fact that such a bill was not only proposed, but actually passed out of the legislature is quite embarrassing and reflects poorly on the state and the legislature.

  1. For example, “Guns have no place in school!”, without explaining how it’s fine for people to carry guns on a public sidewalk on any non-campus street in the state, but is somehow worse to have the same people carrying the same guns on a public sidewalk on-campus. []
  2. It’s already illegal to commit murder and attempted murder, yet that law didn’t seem to stop the shooter. How are stickers declaring a campus to be a “weapon free zone” going to be any better? Criminals would ignore them; only the law-abiding would obey those rules. []

8 thoughts on “Gov. Brewer Vetoes SB 1467

  1. “Public right of way” is used in several other places in ARS and is a fairly well defined in general law. I seem to remember reading it is listed in an industry standard Law dictionary (I forget the name).

    And the Birther thing was not a wise law… Even if it was passed it would likely not be held up in the inevitable court case. Rules for federal elections I would imagine fall under the purview of the federal government. Now if the the law only applied to state and local elections, then it would likely be held up in any court.

    -Richard

  2. If we allow guns in our colleges, especially in a state that peaks violent acts with a “concealed weapon” higher than most any other state, then we are just welcoming a blood bath, have we not learned from our past? Guns do not belong in our schools, hands down!

    • I’m curious where you get your stats on violent crime. Citation needed.

      Also, how would allowing the law-abiding to possess a means of effective self-defense cause a “blood bath”? Law-abiding people can already legally carry just about everywhere else in the state, why would they suddenly turn irresponsible once they set foot on public areas of university campuses? In the current situation, only the criminals can carry (as law-abiding people are banned from doing so), leaving good people defenseless. How is that a good thing?

      People have predicted “blood in the streets” every time firearms laws are liberalized, yet those events have yet to come to pass in any of the 48 states that allow concealed carry. I’m sure if things were as problematic as you claim, you could show some evidence to that effect.

    • Every time some legislation like this comes up Anti bill of rights activists always say the same thing. And it never happens….

      examples: Firearms in places that serve alcohol, passage of constitutional carry, passage of CCW license availability in every state…

      If you are going to make a statement like that please provide some evidence… any evidence… as a criminal lawyer (if you really are one) you should be familiar with this concept.

      Richard

  3. He won’t come up with anything, Richard. There’s nothing to site other than incorrect stats and fear mongering. The one thing, the simplest thing, these idiots just REFUSE to accept is that, by definition, criminals don’t follow laws. Gun laws only affect those who have a desire to actually follow the law and be good citizens and therefore laws limiting my right to possess and carry a firearm only limit me, the law abiding citizen. This is just another example of the disease called liberalism where they are all to willing to sacrifice the majority in favor of the few.

    I do understand Brewer’s stance but don’t agree with it. Guns should be allowed everywhere but prisons IMHO. It’s no coincidence that the bulk of mass shootings in this Nation happen in gun free zones.

    • Lets not start calling people names. I imagine if this person is really a lawyer he/she is intelligent and not an idiot. This person just does not have the ability to reason without emotion or fear on this issue. I was raised in California so I am familiar with this line of thinking. The best reaction we can have is to educate and try to reason with people who want to pick and choose which constitutional amendments they think should be followed.

      It’s many of the Anti-firearms rights groups and people that like to call us idiots and crazy… let’s not be brought down to their level of name calling… we have better tools… FACTS!

      Richard

      • Sorry but I can’t subscribe to that. Would it please you if I used a different word? Ignoramus? Seriously. Whether its willing ignorance or a total refusal of common sense, I call it idiocy. It is what it is. You say he must be intelligent because he’s a lawyer but at the same time acknowledge his total lack of grasping common sense… Stop trying to play nice and be straight. It’s one thing to resort to name calling for lack of a good argument but another thing entirely when the name fits that which it’s applied to.

Comments are closed.