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.

I respectfully disagree. If anything, it shows the need for people to communicate better with others, particularly when it comes to mental health.

Arizona has laws in place that make it relatively easy for people to petition a court to order mandatory mental health evaluations and, in some cases, involuntary commitment. Had family, friends, coworkers, or faculty gone through this process, the alleged shooter could have received the care he evidently needed. As a side effect, he would also have been added to the NICS prohibited persons list and wouldn’t have been able to buy the gun.

The NICS system works as designed, but they can’t block people with mental health issues if they don’t know about the issues. That’s where the courts and due process come into play.

If we can provide mental health services to those who need it, adding people to the NICS list (both with legal oversight and due process, naturally) where needed, that’d likely make a bigger dent in violent crime committed by the mentally ill than more restrictive gun control that overwhelmingly affects ordinary people and doesn’t have much of a success record.

I was intrigued that they really focused on “gun violence”, and many of the discussions involved complaints about “easy access to guns” rather than a profusion of violent criminals.

I commented to my wife that we have incredibly easy access to guns in our condo¹, yet we’re not even remotely prone to violence². Clearly, there’s more contributing to violent crime than simple access to firearms.

The parts of Chicago they were discussing had serious issues with gangs, drugs, and economic depression. I suspect these issues are a bit more important than bad guys getting guns. Take the guns away, and the gangs will use knives, rocks, or boards with a nail through it. Get rid of the gangs, and violent crime goes away. Funny how that works. I truly respect and admire those who are willing to guide vulnerable youth on the good path, away from violence and gangs.

I’m also quite happy that the law-abiding people in Chicago have had the most egregious restrictions overturned, and are able to (even though they need to jump through some hoops) own firearms for their own defense. Hopefully the remaining infringements will be overturned shortly, without the need for time-consuming legal battles.

1. the holstered gun on my waist, two old revolvers in a case on the coffee table, and a pile of long guns in the closet
2. Though we do take MarioKart for Wii quite seriously

That’s right, I believe Drew Douglas Grant, a person responsible for the intentional deaths of 4 children and a teacher, should be granted a permit for a handgun.

- Robb Allen, in this post.

Read out-of-context, this line is enough to send reasonable people into a fit of PSH…and rightfully so. Indeed, when I first read it, I was a bit taken aback. Upon reading the whole thing, however, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Robb.

Go forth and read.

Oh well. Many congratulations to Gura, NRA, the law-abiding citizenry in oppressed localities in the US, et al.

Of course, the California legislature wasn’t satisfied with their partial registry, and so the creeping hand of government advances a bit with AB1810. The NRA has this to say about it:

AB1810 was passed by a 42-29 vote. In short, this bill would establish a registration system, similar to the one currently in place for handguns, for all newly-acquired long guns.  Under AB1810, the make, model and serial number of the firearm as well as the identifying information of the purchaser would be recorded and kept on file by the California Attorney General’s office.

If AB1810 were enacted, violent criminals would continue doing what they do now – obtain firearms through illegal means.  This bill would not decrease crime but will rather have disastrous effects on the already financially unstable Golden State.  AB1810 would impose additional burdens on California’s taxpayers to maintain the registration system as well as on the state’s licensed firearms dealers, small businesses who already deal with extensive business requirements.

One simply needs to look at Canada, a nation with draconian firearms registration, to see the results – billions in cumulative administrative costs, annual cost overruns, no clear substantiation of public safety benefits, unjust prosecution, and a bureaucratic complexity that daunts those willing to comply.  Ironically, California is considering a new registration scheme as Canada is considering doing away with its system.

I couldn’t say it any better. Hopefully this gets killed in the state senate and, if not, the governor vetoes it. While Arnold isn’t exactly a staunch ally of gun owners, he’s vetoed dumb anti-gun-rights bills in the past so it’s not unlikely he’ll veto this one.

What does my hidden base look like? Not much, actually:

Why so barren? I’m moving out of my apartment this coming week, and just ended up selling my desk today, so things are a bit spartan. The textbook on my desk, such as it is, is an advanced undergraduate textbook on thermodynamics; I’m studying for my last finals before graduating.

The gun-rights-lobby consists of a whole lot of ordinary people like myself — though perhaps the others wear pants more often — who take a few minutes out of their busy days to write to their congressmen, write something on their blog, send a brief note out on Twitter, go to the range, or take a new person shooting. Why? Because we’re passionate about it. We shoot and talk about shooting because that’s what we love to do.

Love of liberty is a powerful thing, and as well-funded and politically connected as those who oppose the rights of law-abiding, honest people to keep and bear arms are, they have nothing that comes close.

That said, it’s time for me to get back to studying.