(AZ) Council may ban weapons: Gun owners upset

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
To all of you guys who only post links, this is how you post an article!
http://www.newszap.com/articles/2007/01/19/az/west_valley/sc01.txt

Published: Jan 19, 2007 - 03:30:09 pm EST

Council may ban weapons: Gun owners upset, decision expected Jan. 18

By Zach Colick, Independent Newspapers

The decision to ban deadly weapons in Youngtown’s city buildings and town council chambers was discussed at length Jan. 4 during a council workshop meeting with arguments presented for both sides.

The hour-long discussion had many Youngtown residents on opposite sides of the fence, despite some who addressed the council saying they owned and carried concealed weapons, and agreed a policy should be adopted to ban them.

Youngtown resident June Miller, who agrees with the ban, carries a concealed weapon for protection, but said she does not feel threatened at town council meetings and believes there is a time and place for everything.

Ms. Miller added she locks her gun in the trunk of her car before attending town council meetings.

To accommodate concealed weapons owners and comply with the law, council members are proposing those individuals who visit any town building will need to place their guns into an individually locked storage receptacle, which would be made available to them upon exiting the premises.

But concealed weapons owners, like resident Ken Champagne, argued the proposed new policy would take away his Second Amendment rights and believes it is a personal attack on him.

Mr. Champagne, who said after the meeting he is running against Mayor Michael LeVault in the March primary election, argued he needs to carry a concealed weapon at all times because of the dangers associated with his job as a tow-truck driver, often working late-night hours.

He disagreed with council members who said he should leave his concealed weapon in his tow-truck.

“You are afraid of your own citizens and don’t want to give them their Second Amendment rights,” Mr. Champagne said. “It is ridiculous to disarm citizens.”

His wife, Patricia, also voiced her concerns with banning weapons, saying she often feels threatened in town parking lots before and after council meetings, and believes carrying a gun may help protect her from threats she receives.

“This town means a lot to me,” Ms. Champagne said.

However, Mayor LeVault said the council should not wait until someone is shot on town premises’ before a policy is changed for the greater good of all residents.

“We owe it to the citizens to provide a safe environment,” he said.

Vice Mayor Larry Oglesby said he has a concealed weapons permit but chooses not to bring his gun to town meetings as protection from the Youngtown Police Department is directly across the parking lot.

With no policy in place banning firearms from town meetings, council member Margaret Chittenden said some residents prefer not to attend, adding that attitude has adversely affected council meeting attendance.

“We don’t want people to be afraid,” Ms. Chittenden said. “We need to protect everyone.”

The discussion will continue during the council’s next work session and council meeting 7 p.m. Jan. 18 at the Town of Youngtown Clubhouse, 12030 Clubhouse Square, Youngtown, where a decision is expected to be made on the matter.

Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at newszap.com.

News Editor Zach Colick can be reached at 972-6101 or [email protected].
 
great!

Ms. Miller added she locks her gun in the trunk of her car before attending town council meetings

now every crook who knows how to read knows that she is unarmed and where her gun is!
 
However, Mayor LeVault said the council should not wait until someone is shot on town premises’ before a policy is changed for the greater good of all residents.

“We owe it to the citizens to provide a safe environment,” he said.

[...]

With no policy in place banning firearms from town meetings, council member Margaret Chittenden said some residents prefer not to attend, adding that attitude has adversely affected council meeting attendance.

“We don’t want people to be afraid,” Ms. Chittenden said. “We need to protect everyone.”

Obviously, they need to do something to stem the flow of blood routinely shed at their council meetings. :scrutiny:

It sounds like there hasn't been a problem with the current policy (or lack thereof), except for perhaps a few people who are made uncomfortable by firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens. If making a few people uncomfortable is the new standard by which rules and legislation should be passed, then I've got a list of stuff to gripe about.

Also, if there is a tragic incident where someone is unable to protect themselves effectively, how quickly do you think these folks will deny that they have a legal obligation to provide for an individual's safety and protection?

And, to top it off... do they really, honestly think that someone intent on shooting up a town meeting would pay attention to their rules? Actually, they probably do. They probably are the types who think that anyone who has a firearm is forever poised on the edge of committing mass murder.
 
“We owe it to the citizens to provide a safe environment,” he said.

Yes, by taking away means to defend themselves! :banghead: Oh, but wait, they could just learn martial arts, that would be good enough, because we all know from the movies that martial arts is always more effective than a guy with a gun. :barf:


But concealed weapons owners, like resident Ken Champagne, argued the proposed new policy would take away his Second Amendment rights and believes it is a personal attack on him.

I couldn't agree with him more.

“You are afraid of your own citizens and don’t want to give them their Second Amendment rights,” Mr. Champagne said. “It is ridiculous to disarm citizens.”

Glad there's a voice shouting in the wilderness.
 
However, Mayor LeVault said the council should not wait until someone is shot on town premises’ before a policy is changed for the greater good of all residents.
Sounds Socialistic to me
 
Council

The quote:

>“We owe it to the citizens to provide a safe environment,” he said.<
*****

Epitomizes the mindset of people who ascribe to the notion that the elected official knows more about what an individual needs to do in order to be safe than the individual.

No, Mr. Councilman. You owe it to the citizens to do what is best for them when you set policy for the township. You do what is best for them by giving them a choice as to whether they want to be able to meet a sudden threat by their own resources, or trust in the local police to provide it for them...or trust in plain, dumb luck that they won't be targeted on a given night, since the cretins who attack people on a whim seldom do it when a cop is nearby.

Simply put, Mr. Councilman...you need to tend to town affairs and leave personal choice alone, sir. More simply put...Who the hell do you think you are to propose to disarm American citizens who are law-abiding and peaceably disposed? (Unless, of course, you have a plan to assign an armed guard to each attendee of the meeting who will insure that they get home safe and sound.)
 
Sounds like there's too many politicians from Cali infiltrating the ranks in Arizona...
 
Oh I wish I could pull up the case I read about where a town meeting ended and one of the ladies stayed back to clean up. She was victimized by someone not long after it ended. I cannot remember exactly how though :(

Yeah the time you need guns the least is when a mob might form upset over the same things and exact thier own form of punishment (sarcasm) in a town meeting.

I see the same thing happening with CCW as happend previously with normal carry in the old west. Eventualy by the time of the Gangster era that lead to our NFA legislation only the police and the criminals carried guns as ordinances most places prohibited firearms to be carried. It didn't stop crime, and it helped to demonize firearms.
First it was public buildings. Then it was public places taverns etc. Then you couldn't wear a weapon in town. Then traveling with a weapon in many locations. Everyone slowly banned them until it was accepted they were banned altogether outside of someones private property. Now we are repeating history with concealed carry. We already lost once, if we lose again under what pretense could this be revisited?
None I can think of. Rights that go down the drain this time are permanent unless challenged slowly on an individual basis in court.
If it is felt firearms are unsuitable some places, there is no reason they cannot be felt to be unsuitable other places up to and including just about anywhere. When ccw applies to only your home and the wilderness what good will it be then?
 
One of the reasons you will never see a total gun ban is when this happens the government assumes total responsibility for your safety. As seen in the past this is impossible for a government to ensure.
The lady that was victimized should have taken the city to court for failure to protect.

This is also true with any business that forbids people from bringing firearms unto their property. That business just assumed full responsibility for your safety. Which means if you are harmed by another patron then that business that denied you the right to self protection is responsible for your protection.
 
I don't get this.....is this banning firearms in a townhall meeting?

Aren't townhalls a government building? I thought AZ doesn't allow firearms in any government building, so what is so different about this law?
 
http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/procedures/carry.asp

FIREARMS ARE PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES (with or without a permit)

* Businesses serving alcohol for consumption on the premises (peace officers are excepted)

* Polling places on election days (peace officers are excepted)

* School grounds (some exceptions – see below) (peace officers are excepted)

* Commercial nuclear & hydroelectric generating stations (peace officers are excepted)

* Military installations (peace officers are limited)

* Indian reservations (check w/tribe, peace officers are limited)

* Game preserves (peace officers are limited)

* National parks (peace officers are limited)

* Correctional facilities

* Federal buildings (peace officers are limited)

* Airports (in or beyond security checkpoints) (peace officers are limited)

* Where federal, state or local laws prohibit weapons (peace officers are limited)

* State or local government/private establishments or events when asked by the operator/sponsor/agent. Most government facilities will provide a location to temporarily store a firearm. Persons who refuse to leave and/or secure their weapon are trespassing and can be cited or arrested for 13-1502A1 (C3M) or 13-1503A (C2M), depending on the venue (peace officers are excepted)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.