Arizona Gun free Zone Act proposed

[Old Fuff]

Those who don't like guns will certainly not like OC and public businesses will not have any practical means to prevent it), or you prohibit carry of weapons and risk a gunman turning your mall into a shooting gallery, ....

Well to start, yes- open carry is allowed in Arizona, but a business can be posted to prevent it.

The basic problem is that business, schools, and other places that have gun free zones don't have any effective way to enforce their dictates. No mass killer is going to pay any attention to a sign!

On the other hand whoever has created this gun free(?) zone is endangering anyone in it by advertising the fact of what it is.

That's why you won't find The Old Fuff inside one - at least if he can help it.

 

[Liko81]

I seem to remember that we have created severe penalties for people who excercise their right to free association and discriminate against people on the basis of race, sex or creed...

The right of free association is not at issue in your case (I'm assuming you mean hate groups like the KKK). It's the discrimination, and the discrimination has no other purpose than to make the group feel superior to all others.

Like I said, it's very simple; my house, my rules. Those rules may infringe on your rights, but they are the rules if you wish to enter or remain on my property you must follow them.

Nobody's yet come forth to explain to me the practical difference between a gun owner being held liable for crimes commited by someone with the owner's stolen unsecured gun, and a business owner being held liable for actions committed by a complete unknown, a non-agent of the owner, who has broken state and federal law simply by being there with a gun. I was torn to pieces for "spreading liability" in the former case, now you guys are going to tear me to pieces because I'm AGAINST spreading liability in the latter. There must be a difference, and the only one I can see is that YOU would be held responsible in the first case, while someone ELSE foots the bill in the second. That's hypocritical in the extreme; you're making the rules to suit yourself at the expense of everyone who thinks differently.

On the other hand whoever has created this gun free(?) zone is endangering anyone in it by advertising the fact of what it is.

That's why you won't find The Old Fuff inside one - at least if he can help it.

I must admit I can find no practical way to do away with the advertisement. The only way to proactively enforce it is a metal detector at every entrance to every gun-free zone, which would be more than impractical for your neighborhood McDonald's. The only other way would require employees or patrons noticing the gun in the first place, at which point management can ask you to leave and can have you charged with trespassing by a CHL holder if you refuse. That's the "concealed is concealed" argument; what nobody knows won't hurt them. The major objections I've mentioned that antis would have to open carry on other than criminal grounds center around an anti's discomfort around guns and their right to live their lives without constantly being openly confronted by them. In that case, carry well-concealed and everyone's happy; you have your guns, they don't have to see them. So by that logic you could have a binding sign prohibiting open carry, and a gun becoming visible however briefly constitutes open carry, but such a place would have to require permitless concealed carry in order not to infringe on someone who would otherwise obviously openly carry. Not sure the legislators would like that as permitless concealed carry renders CHLs almost worthless except to bypass NICS and for reciprocity. However, I guarantee you won't find many antis in an establishment frequented by people who carry openly, and antis outnumber carriers. The business will do what they can to attract the larger customer base even at the expense of the smaller.

 

[revjen45]

"Oh, thanks for quoting me so now everyone sees the original. I'm talking about AZ_Rebel and revjen45."
I neither posted nor intended any ill toward Andrewski or any other poster. I simply pointed out that such a jest got me banned. I do not for a moment think Andrewski seriously advocated planting a throw down gun on a corpse. Besides, I'm sure he wouldn't waste a Makarov when the world is full of Ravens and Lorcins. (I am not advocating illegal activity of any sort including but not limited to planting Ravens, Hi-Points, or Lorcins, on corpses, or spitting on the sidewalk, etc.)

 

[revjen45]

"Oh, thanks for quoting me so now everyone sees the original. I'm talking about AZ_Rebel and revjen45."
I neither posted nor intended any ill toward Andrewski or any other poster. I simply pointed out that such a jest got me banned. I do not for a moment think Andrewski seriously advocated planting a throw down gun on a corpse. Besides, I'm sure he wouldn't waste a Makarov when the world is full of Ravens and Lorcins. (I am not advocating illegal activity of any sort including but not limited to planting Ravens, Hi-Points, or Lorcins, on corpses, or spitting on the sidewalk, etc.)

 

[AZ_Rebel]

Oh, thanks for quoting me so now everyone sees the original.

Hmmmm.... you make a really unwise statement and you are upset when polite suggestions are made about it?

For those of you with a heartbeat under 10 beats per minute

And then try to cover your embarrasment with a snide comment?

 

[Andrewsky]

Edit: You're right Rebel, have a nice day.

By the way, earlier this year I bought an M1A SOCOM at AJI and a Ruger 10/22 at the Apache Junction Wal Mart.

 

[bsf]

I am not an Arizona resident, so Arizona can do what Arizona wants in this matter. It has no direct effect on me. That being said, I would not want similar legislation passed here in Michigan. If a non-government entity wants to make its property a “gun free zone” I think it should be able to. The real problem is not that non-government entities make this choice, but that most people are ignorant, pathetic sheep that do not care about such things as personal responsibility, especially as concerns personal safety. If Business X or Church Y decides to designate itself as a “gun free zone”, I do not think it should “be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone”. You do not have to go there. I see a difference with government facilities. I do not think “government”, whether it is local, state, or federal, should be creating gun free zones. On the other hand, I believe, on the whole, people get what they deserve with government. People vote into office power hungry, dishonest politicians who do not respect the constitution and then those voters get to face the consequences, which may or may not be viewed as negative. Sure, maybe you personally do not vote these freedom-destroying jacka**es into office, but you are currently outnumbered. It sucks, but that is the way it is. Supposedly, the judicial system was supposed to be a check on the power of these elected jerks, but these judges are either selected by the traitors elected by the idiots, or elected by the idiots directly.

Wow, I got off topic. Sorry. To sum up, I will not tell Arizona what to do but I will not support similar legislation here in Michigan.

 

[north]

Yes/
Good job AZ. Hope it passes.

 

[Flyboy]

Here's the problem I see:
A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government...

Does anybody really think the government will enact a law making itself accountable?

And, bigun: This kind of thing needs to be federal.

Bad idea. A) Getting the Feds in my holster is invariably a bad idea, and B) where do you see the authority to do that in the defined powers of Article I, Section 8?

 

[MakAttak]

The right of free association is not at issue in your case (I'm assuming you mean hate groups like the KKK). It's the discrimination, and the discrimination has no other purpose than to make the group feel superior to all others.

This is true. However, we force employers not to engage in discrimination. We also force businesses to serve everyone the same without discrimination. In all of these, an individual who is selling or hiring has the same private property rights and rights of free association as anyone else. Business are, apparently, a special case.

Given this, if a business takes the stance of preventing legal arms from being carried in a store but makes no attempt to prevent illegal arms from being in the store, they should be held responsible.

Either that, or get the government out of the business's business altogether. Either businesses are made of individuals with rights or businesses are public entities subject to government restrictions.

Which is it?

Will you be logically consistent, Liko and suggest that businesses should have a right to discriminate?

 

[Henry Bowman]

Will you be logically consistent, Liko and suggest that businesses should have a right to discriminate?

Generally, business do have the right to discriminate. It is not good business, however, to do so in unpopular ways. There are a few exceptions spelled out (protected) in antidiscrimination statutes. Most are related to employment. One exception relates to innkeepers and whom they may refuse to be customers. Others relate to discriminatory pricing if it is monopolistic in purpose or effect.

 

[MakAttak]

Generally, business do have the right to discriminate. It is not good business, however, to do so in unpopular ways.

Somehow I doubt a business would be legally allowed (business sense aside) to put up a sign that said "No Blacks."

Legal Scholars care to comment?

 

[Liko81]

In all of these, an individual who is selling or hiring has the same private property rights and rights of free association as anyone else

Wrong. An individual acting in matters of money or employment has the same responsibilities as if they were a sole proprietorship (quite simply a person doing business as a registered company name; the person IS the company). An individual hiring someone over someone else to help them with home repair, yardwork or practically anything else, or who sells something to one person over another can be sued for discrimination in employment or business practices just as if the person sued were acting on behalf of an LLC or corporation.

The difference is that in most individual cases such an accusation is very easy to defend. "I hired him because he'd worked for me before/he was my friend/he had the lower price/he appeared more professional/he showed up first"; any of this is valid and completely understandable, and the plaintiff must prove your intent was otherwise. Generally as an individual you're not looking to hire 50 people where someone could point out they're all white males, and if you personally do not have a history of bigoted statements/actions to establish a pattern of behavior, proof that you were discriminating is very difficult to get. Even if the plaintiff wins, the payout is not going to be nearly as much as from a business; if the transaction only had $100 in value such as an odd job or personal sale, that is the extent of damages and punitive damages are likely to be minor unless the discrimination was obvious and grievous. Another difference that makes a difference is that a business is not going to want the bad PR of a discrimination lawsuit even if they did nothing wrong. An individual won't be nearly as likely to care as the issue will be minor and once settled the individual generally disappears into obscurity. That's why lawsuits against individuals for discrimination are rarer than those against businesses; it's simple cost/benefits.

A business entity, even if legally seperate from any one person, has the same rights and must follow the same laws you do, and vice versa. The only two differences from a legal standpoint is that a business cannot go to jail, while Joe Schmo does not cease to exist if he files Chapter 7. Even "public" companies are only public in that anyone can get a piece of them; they are still owned by people and not government, and their assets are private property, to which they are entitled the same control that you as a homeowner can exercise over your own home and land. The differences in regulation between a business and an individual are largely financial (requirement of accounting records, open records, differences in tax law) and have no bearing on businesses' property rights or other policies as being different from an individual's. Try again.