Running With Scissors in Arizona

RunScissorsThe documentary film Bowling for Columbine debuted twelve years ago, but with each passing year it seems that the title of the film itself grows more poignant.

To put it simply — we’re asking for it.

The Arizona state Senate has advanced a bill that would open up a loophole to allow you to carry guns in government buildings even if it’s forbidden.

On a 16-13 vote, the Senate approved legislation allowing anyone with a gun, open or concealed, to ignore “no weapons” signs on public buildings if there are not lockers to secure them immediately available. SB1063 now goes to the House.

Lockers? Does your local DMV have gun lockers in the lobby?

No, and why the hell should it?

They didn’t stop there.

In a separate vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to permit some gun owners to carry their guns into buildings, lockers or not.

HB2339, which already has been approved by the House, applies to the more than 215,000 who have undergone a state-approved training class and background check which allows them to carry a concealed weapon. It says they can ignore “no guns” signs and lockers and keep their weapons with them in the building.

The first bill allows you to carry guns into government buildings if there are no lockers “immediately available.” The second bill allows you to carry guns into government buildings even if there are lockers immediately available.

But wait, we’re not done! Call now and Arizona Republicans will triple your order!

In a separate vote, the same committee approved HB2517. It requires a court to impose a $5,000 fine against any government official, elected or appointed, who knowingly enforces any local ordinance with contradicts state laws.

Arizona Republicans really, really want more guns in government buildings. They’re covering all the bases; voting for three separate bills in short order aimed at putting a gun in every cubicle.

This would be a good time to point out that a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun up until the point he pulled the trigger.

(via Arizona Sun Daily)

  • Badgerite

    I wonder if this ‘exception’ would apply to the guy who shot the man in Florida over texting and some popcorn? So in Arizona, if someone had seen Jared Loughner coming, they couldn’t have legally intervened or done anything until he fired off some shots and killed a few people.
    Arizona, WTF!

  • IrishGrrrl

    I suspect, beyond the usual BS NRA reasoning, the legislators want to carry their own guns into the capitol building and have not been able to do so previously. They are soooo paranoid it’s crazy–literally crazy. The Republicans outnumber Dems and have a stranglehold on the Legislature so that every vote is along party lines and they always win–no matter how batshit the law may be (FSM knows there’s been a string of them lately). But it still wouldn’t surprise me if they want their guns with them in order to feel safer from the Dems. No matter how much power they have, they never feel safe enough so they will gather more power, ad infinitum. It’s why they collect guns. Because they can never have enough.

    The irony is that if someone does go in their guns blazing and they take out a bunch of Republicans, the people in this state will simply canonize them and completely ignore the fact that they signed their own death warrant by passing this incredibly idiotic bill in the first damn place. I’ve given up on any rational thinking in AZ lawmaking for several more generations. That’s why I fervently hope and pray that liberals from both coasts continue to move here and that minorities continue their pace of higher birth rates–because demographic change is the ONLY thing that will loosen the conservatives death grip on this state.

  • muselet

    Thank you, Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you so much for loosing this insanity upon the rest of us. If we ask nicely, can we get security details like you have?


    • IrishGrrrl

      And can we all live in security gated mansions and have a private driver in a bullet proof limousine?

  • MrDHalen

    These guys want the good ole days of the wild west so bad, that they are willing to undo years of societal progress to get it.

    pouring guns into our society will not end well. We are headed for some very bad days.

    • vgranucci

      I’m fine with the old west–many towns required guns to be left with the sheriff until the owner left town. The good ole days these guys want never existed except in the movies.

  • Ipecac


    Seriously, do these guys really want people walking into their building with guns? Or is their building exempt?

    It’s like the only thing that would get through to them is if someone walked into a session of the Arizona legislature and opened fire. And even that probably wouldn’t work.

    • Christopher Foxx

      I like weshoper’s idea above. I think folks with guns who are opposed to this silliness should show up at the capitol fully armed. See how comfortable the legislators feel about having a bunch of armed folks who disagree with them watching from the balcony.

  • Christopher Foxx

    It requires a court to impose a $5,000 fine against any government official, elected or appointed, who knowingly enforces any local ordinance with contradicts state laws.

    Is there anything Republicans do that isn’t dripping with hypocrisy?

    It is, per them, completely wrong for a larger government to impose on a more local one when you’re talking about the Federal government giving directions to states. But it’s completely correct for a state to tell local communities to not obey the law. More simply put: It’s a gross attack on liberty when someone tells them what they can’t do, but a moral obligation when they do it.

    • notoriousbob

      They call it tyranny, or is it freedom? I can’t keep track.

      • Christopher Foxx

        It’s both. Thanks for the reminder. Updated my comment to add tyranny.

  • weshopper

    One can only hope that all the spectators at the Legislature are angry “patriots” with guns and ammo. See how the GOP likes that.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Sounds like a plan. Anyone in Arizona with a gun who is opposed to this foolishness should show up at the capitol and do just that.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        I’d go one step further. Show up at the capitol armed, go to the gallery during a legislative session, draw the weapon, aim it at one particular legislator (whoever is speaking), and keep it aimed at that legislator throughout the session.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Sounds like a plan.

          I really, *really* wish some folks would do this.

        • IrishGrrrl

          Believe me, as a gun owner AND a liberal, I’ve thought about it. However, I’d be risking my life. Because there will be armed officers there (unlike Aurora or Sand Hook) not to mention all the right wingers who are carrying.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Oh, no doubt. People in the gallery aiming at legislators, other people in the gallery aiming at them, police aiming at everyone; heck, let’s have the legislators armed too so they can aim at each other, or at the gallery, or at the police. Every legislative session turns into a giant Mexican standoff. Freedom!

  • GrafZeppelin127

    No amount of gun violence and no number of gun deaths will be enough to convince gun strokers that public safety is more important than their feelings of personal heroism.

    • Christopher Foxx

      …than their feelings of personal heroism victimization


      • GrafZeppelin127

        No, I had it right, although in a sense it amounts to the same thing. What I was referring to was this response I got from a gun enthusiast on one of my gun-rights-as-property-rights diaries on DK:

        The risk is more one of perception than law. If firearms ownership is “only a property right”, like owning a dishwasher, then that seeps into the culture as somehow being less important that the high ideals of free speech, freedom of religion, etc…

        Previously, he had described the property rights argument thusly:

        It’s your attempt to “diminish” a civil right we hold very very dear by showing us it’s “only a property right”, not a “real” civil right. Which while it has no practical effect, I think a lot of people would find patronizing and somewhat offensive. … Pick any other civil right, privacy, speech, religion, free movement, etc… and attempt find a way to diminish it’s validity (like republicans do with choice) and see how people react…

        Of course, I never used the words “only” and “real” as he did in the bolded phrase. He added those words to validate his feelings about what I wrote, which were exactly what I had said they would be in the diary:

        [R]eferring to guns as mere consumer goods, retail products, little mechanical devices manufactured and sold for profit,
        de-mythologizes them. One might even think it trivializes them.

        [W]hat I’ve apparently done is accuse the Heroes of the Next American Revolution of being nothing but ordinary retail consumers.

        Maybe it’s just my way of passive-aggressively telling the Heroes of the Next American Revolution to get over themselves.

        What this person was saying was that it is important to gun enthusuasts that guns and gun ownership be perceived as sacred, vital, and heroic. That’s how they feel and that’s how they want/require everyone else to feel. Gun control, or even acknowledging the need for gun control, undermines those feelings. They need to feel heroic, and they need to prevent society (through the law) from undermining those feelings … no matter how many people have to die.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Yeah. I should have just added an “and victimization” instead of crossing out the heroism part.

          You don’t need to talk with a gun enthusiast about gun control for long for them to put forward an argument that boils down to “gotta protect ourselves because they’re out to get us.”

          They claim the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the citizenry with a way to fight back (revolt) against the government when, in fact, the intent was pretty much the opposite. Behind that “to fight back if we need to” view is the idea that they will need to, because (mounds of evidence to the contrary) the government is out to trample their rights.

          In any conversation about implementing reasonable gun controls, a common objection is the need for home protection against an invader. Despite Obama having essentially a terrible record on gun control, they see him as wanting to take their guns. When slaughters happen at Sandy Hook and Aurora and …, they see themselves as the real victims because those horrors might lead folks to limit access to guns. Despite not a thing of note being done to control guns in the wake of Sandy Hook (and many laws being passed to make guns more available and present in public spaces) they see the real tragedy as someone might pass gun control laws.

          In addition to wanting to live in the trailer-for-an-action-movie fantasy they’ve concocted for themselves they see themselves as the oppressed.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            I’ll take that “the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the citizenry wit a way to fight back (revolt) against the government” bullshit a lot more seriously when those saying it now say it during a Republican administration.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Pretty sure they’ll say it all the time. They’re fairly one-note.

            Although during Republican administrations they probably feel a little less need to.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            I don’t think I heard or read this once between 1/20/2001 and 1/19/2009.

          • IrishGrrrl

            I’ll take that…bullshit a lot more seriously when…say it during a Republican administration.

            Here, here! All we’ll hear are crickets.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Honestly, I think it will take some lunatic going on a shooting rampage inside the state capital building to make these fools see reason. Unless it personally impacts them, they just don’t care.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        That won’t work. Sandy Hook didn’t work. Aurora didn’t work. Columbine didn’t work.

        We can’t have gun control. Gun control means gun ownership and use are less important than other “rights.” They can’t have guns, gun ownership, and gun owners regarded by anyone as less important than anything.

        • Ashes Defacto

          Increasingly the NRA and their ilk are moving in the direction of their “right” to have guns at any cost supersedes the rights of others.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            They’re not “moving in [that] direction.” They’ve been there for quite some time.

          • D_C_Wilson

            They’re just admitting it out loud now.