Arizona Governor Vetoes Guns-in-Bars Bill

[Bob R]

Another feel good use of the veteo?

AZ members, is there any chance of this being overuled?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/26/110211.shtml

bob

 

[AZRickD]

No.

And nearly everything the governor said about the bill is a lie.

Rick

 

[Lennyjoe]

I dont think it will be overuled either.

Maybe a compromise.

How about a 51% rule like Texas.

 

[foghornl]

Any chance Arizona can veto "The Guv"?

 

[Old Fuff]

No, an over-ride is not probable. The best asnwer would be to:

Flood the Governor's office with e-mails. She will be up for re-election next year and has recently made two mistakes - first coming out against the Minute Man Project and now this. Both will cost her votes.

Two, contact the Restaurant Association and individual restaurant owners and let them know that you won't be eating out as much as you used to, and besides the loss of business what they really need to be worried about is those that carry illegally, not those who are licensed. They also didn't notice that an increasing number of winter snowbirds carry because they are either licensed in they're own state, or have non-resident Arizona licenses.

Frankly, the real reason the restaurant folks opposed this bill was because they didn't want people carrying weapons within they're establishments, and the didn't want to post signs because they learned the hard way that the signs cost them business. This way, they thought, they could keep out the guns without any loss of customers. We need to tell them that it won't work that way. I now consider ALL restaurants and bars to be anti-gun until proven otherwise. Before it was the other way around.

Edited to add: It wouldn't hurt for you out-of-state residents who are licensed and might visit Arizona to e-mail the governor and tell her that you too are not happy about the veto. You might decide to go elsewhere for your winter (or whenever) trips.

 

[RealGun]

It's all about prior restraint. If you first establish that self defense is indeed a right (legally, not just idealistically), and that it may be provided with carrying a gun, then prior restraint can be more easily constrained, perhaps even treated as unconstitutional. Prior restraint is infringement.

This law was submitted for signature in an environment wherein gun ownership and bearing of arms is treated as a privilege due to prior precedent. If you invalidate the precedent(s), a right can be reclaimed. Good luck.

I doubt that getting these laws passed in a mother-may-I environment is the right way to go. A veto in the current environment is certainly no surprise. I am amazed that the bill got as far as it did.

While carrying, I have no business in a bar unless I need a restroom, need water, or need to ask for directions. Whenever I have any practical option, I shouldn't be anywhere near a bar.

If a business that serves alcohol is also a restaurant, I can easily justify being there if indeed ordering food. Sitting at any separate bar is a bad idea. If a shooting did occur, I would expect to have to justify being in an acknowledged, higher risk situation. What I would be concerned about is any opening in the law allowing prosecution that could be abused with prejudice. There's the rub.

Frankly, I think the best gun toters should hope for is clearance to carry in restaurants that also serve alcohol. A business dedicated to drinking alcohol, a bar, is always going to be a concern of people afraid of what others might do with guns, and they have plenty of history on which to base those fears and to make a rational case for restrictions. I don't know if these businesses are clearly classified/categorized by way of posted licenses, but there can't be any question about what is or is not off limits, what is or is not "a bar".

I think any legislation should first establish the right to carry into restaurants before expecting any consideration of bar carry. Giant leaps are a lot to expect, while needing to educate people, many of whom don't want to change their thinking, in the process.

Lastly, whatever the restrictions, they should also apply to law enforcement unless uniformed. I don't regard plain clothes LEOs as a special class of citizen unless on a specific mission. If just eating lunch or using a restroom, they are not somehow special, since any need for self defense or license to come to someones aid would be no different that the average person. A uniformed LEO is different because the uniform invites a threat, especially if apparently unarmed. The open carry weapon is also an important part of the LEOs presence and peace keeping influence. I am dead set against automatically and categorically excluding LEOs from restrictions, because an honest citizen has the same need for a gun and is not subordinate to law enforcement.

 

[AZRickD]

Can't do the 51% rule in Arizona. AZ liquor laws are too labyrnth. The Restaurant Assoc rejected that two years ago anyway.

Here is the article about the veto:

I am quoted near the end... I think "Old Fluff" will appreciate it.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special12/articles/0426guns-veto26.html

Guns-in-bars bill vetoed
Napolitano sides with tourism industry rather than NRA



Robbie Sherwood
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 26, 2005 12:00 AM

Gov. Janet Napolitano said no on Monday to mixing guns and alcohol in Arizona nightspots.

Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars, nightclubs and restaurants as long as the patrons didn't imbibe. She delivered that veto along with eight others, rejecting more bills in one day since the 16 budget measures she vetoed last month.

The governor risks angering the National Rifle Association, which claims 100,000 members in Arizona and has lobbied for two years so gun owners could dine in restaurants that served alcohol without leaving their guns behind.

Napolitano said she is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but she chose to side with Arizona's tourism and hospitality industry, the powerful lifeblood of the state's economy, and with major law enforcement organizations. They all opposed the bill, saying it would invite deadly altercations.

"Arizona's law enforcement organizations have consistently opposed this legislation, and their concerns have not been addressed by the sponsors of this bill," Napolitano wrote in her veto letter. "I am also sympathetic to the concerns of property owners, including the owners of bars and restaurants that would have been adversely affected by this bill."

Although Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, overriding the veto would seem unlikely. Lawmakers would need 40 of 90 House votes and 20 of 30 in the Senate. The bill passed with 36 House votes and 17 in the Senate.

Todd Rathner of Tucson, a member of the NRA's national board of directors, said that the bill will return next year and that he doesn't envision any attempt to water it down. He also said the veto could harm Napolitano's chances for re-election in 2006, adding that "law-abiding gun owners in Arizona have a very long memory."

"She says she supports the Second Amendment and supports law-abiding gun owners," Rathner said of Napolitano. "This was her first real test on that, and she failed it miserably."

But bar and restaurant owners such as Phil Miglino of Phoenix were ecstatic.

"We're happy she recognized that it's dangerous for our employees and for the industry as a whole," said Miglino, who owns Nixon's at the Esplanade. "It is also exciting for the recognition of the hospitality industry and how important it is to the state. You can't mess with the golden goose, which is tourism in Arizona."

Added Don Isaacson of the Arizona Restaurant Association, "We believe the state is safer today with the governor's veto."

But gun owner Rick DeStephens of Phoenix, an epidemiologist and "self-defense activist," said Isaacson and other opponents of guns in bars cannot point to any documented incidents of trouble with armed patrons in the 33 other states with laws similar to the vetoed Senate Bill 1363.

"What the (restaurant) association actually fears is that their members will no longer be able to hide behind a blanket no-firearms prohibition," DeStephens said.

"They will have to come out of the closet and state to everyone whether they want gun owners' money or not. They suspect that gun owners will take their money elsewhere, and they're correct in that suspicion."

Sen. Jack Harper, who sponsored the bill, hinted that Napolitano's opposition was rooted in an association early in her career with former Attorney General Janet Reno, whom Harper said "opposes the Second Amendment."

"I believe she is the same liberal she was in the '80s," said Harper, R-Surprise.

Eric Edwards, executive director of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said, "Guns don't mix with booze any better than driving has."

 

[Old Fuff]

>> I think "Old Fluff" will appreciate it. <<

Yup, he did ... Yes, there will be a "next time," most likely during an election year.

 

[VARifleman]

In a brief veto letter, Napolitano, a Democrat, called herself a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment," but noted the opposition by law enforcement and said she was sympathetic to the concerns of property owners.

What a dumb . First she says she's a supporter of the 2nd amendment, and gives into the canard fears of LEOs!? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: And how would this affect property owners? If they don't want to have people carry in their resturant, post a sign telling them that they can't. Simple. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[gunsmith]

please post addresses for us out of staters

I think a letter from a real tourist indicating how un happy he is,x 1000
might help AZ ccw a bit.

 

[AZRickD]

We intercepted an e-mail from one of the Restaurant Association honchos congratulating everyone who swayed Gov'ner Janet to veto the bill.

The hospitality industry is the Number 1 employer in Arizona, so say some. They have lots of people to dial phones and send e-mails.

Anyway, here are the folks on the e-mail list who helped to support the veto:

<[email protected]> Bill Weigele AZ Licensed Beverage Association - president
<[email protected]>; AZ Licensed Beverage Association concact email
<[email protected]>; Business Council for Alcohol Education - AZ
<[email protected]>; James Poulos, AZLBA director, Robson Communities VP of operations
<[email protected]>; Dave Delos, AZ LBA VP, Tony's Cocktail Lounge
<[email protected]>; George Atwell, AZLBA director, Robson Communities director of food & beverage
<[email protected]>; Barbara Jansen, AZLBA secretary
<[email protected]>; Robin Cantrell AZLBA VP, Branding Iron Steakhouse & Lounge
<[email protected]>; Wendy Jack, AZLBA director, Wendy Jack's Lounge & Restaurant
<[email protected]>; Fred Maillaire AZLBA treasurer
<[email protected]>; Dave Michelson, AZLBA director, The Palace
<[email protected]>; Dave Williamson, AZLBA director, Mogollon Brewing
<[email protected]>; Bob Molinari, AZLBA director, Uncle Sal's Italian
Restaurant & Bar
<[email protected]>; Bill Riddle/Janie Riddle, AZLBA directors, Valle Luna
<[email protected]>; Bill Stapleton, AZLBA director, Bashful Bandit
<[email protected]>; Anthony Bartoli, AZLBA director, Bunkhouse Lounge
<[email protected]>; Matt Minakes, AZLBA director, Icehouse
<[email protected]>; Deanne Poulos, AZ Commission on the Arts?
<[email protected]>; John Bowers, AZ Association for Economic Development executive director
<[email protected]>; someone at AZ Society of Association Executives
<[email protected]>; Jonathan Walker, Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau president & CEO
<[email protected]>; Kathleen Andereck, Professor Department of Recreation & Tourism Managment, ASU West
<[email protected]>; Michael Montil Monti's La Casa Viejo owner
<[email protected]>; Steve Moore, Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau president & CEO
<[email protected]>; Barry Aarons, The Aarons Company, also Research Fellow, Institute for Policy Innovation
<[email protected]>; Debbie Johnson, AZ Hotel & Lodging Association executive director, also on Governor's Tourism Advisory Council
<[email protected]>; Mary Menard, Meeting Professionals Internation Senior Global Development Manager
<[email protected]>; someone at the Heard Museum
<[email protected]>; Tandy Young, Arizona American Indian Tourism Association <[email protected]>; Margie Emermann, AZ Office of Tourism director
<[email protected]> Ed Wren - Lobbyist, AZ Hotel and Lodging Assoc. (also lobbies for several LEO orgs)
<[email protected]> Lt. Eric Edwards, PPD - Lobbyist, AZ Assoc. of Chiefs of Police (AZCOPS)
<[email protected]> Mayor of Phoenix

 

[AZLibertarian]

AZRickD,
I imagine the legwork you've done on this might seem thankless at this point, but please accept my thanks for what you've done here. I did my bit at getting it through the Legislature, but said on my own humble blog that I am not surprised that Napolitano vetoed this. She's far too much of a leftist to let this go through. The AZ media did their best to obfuscate what to me was a simple concept--that I could drink only water while carrying in a restaurant, while my wife might enjoy a glass of wine. While this is certainly a setback, I am taking a longer--and therefore optimistic--look at the movement of gun issues across the country. It'll happen some day--maybe next year.

 

[RealGun]

We intercepted an e-mail from one of the Restaurant Association honchos congratulating everyone who swayed Gov'ner Janet to veto the bill.

Do they have these sacred property rights or not? Why are they concerned? I still say a business open to the public is questionable when clearly discriminating. If it is legal to simply opt to post a sign, what are they thinking?

 

[Old Fuff]

>> Do they have these sacred property rights or not? <<

Sure they do, and I will respect them. All they have to do is post a sign at the door of they’re business property saying that my legally carried gun isn’t welcome and I will leave without crossing the threshold.

However when I do so I will take my money with me. Respecting their rights doesn’t mean that I am obligated to to buy the products or services they tender.

And therein lies the issue … They don’t want my gun but they do want my money, and I should have an equal right to know this.

After all, legally licensed gun carriers should have some rights too …

 

[armoredman]

You'd think that, Old Fuff, but there are two types of people that may be legall discriminated against, ridiculed and singled out for unending harassment - law abiding firearms owners and smokers.

 

[RealGun]

Sure they do, and I will respect them.

I don't think that answers the question of why the property owners need to proactively oppose passage of the law. I can think of one reason, and that would be that many restaurant chains that post a sign will have hell to pay from gun owners groups. In effect, they may not have a choice politically and economically but to allow carrying in their restaurants. But there is still a question about whether property rights are being threatened.

 

[Old Fuff]

>> I don't think that answers the question of why the property owners need to proactively oppose passage of the law. I can think of one reason, and that would be that many restaurant chains that post a sign will have hell to pay from gun owners groups. <<

Yes, of course you are right. I covered that aspect is a previous post in this thread …

>> Frankly, the real reason the restaurant folks opposed this bill was because they didn't want people carrying weapons within they're establishments, and the didn't want to post signs because they learned the hard way that the signs cost them business. This way, they thought, they could keep out the guns without any loss of customers. <<

My position is simple. They have a right to control (to a degree) who can or can’t enter they’re establishments. But legal, licensed gun carriers have an equal right to know this before they spend their money when the business owner’s policy impacts on them. Of course they can discriminate against us, but they shouldn’t be allowed to get our money too. Any honest businessperson that doesn’t want guns on the property should be required to post a sign to that effect, and then accept the economic consequences.

These restaurant jerks are a long way from being honest concerning this issue.