Drizzt
Member
Lawmaker is locked and loaded for tough legislative fight
Feb. 13, 2003
State Rep. Randy Graf dreams of a nation unafraid to speak of God or to freely dispense guns. A nation where invoking the Lord's name in the Pledge of Allegiance would never be questioned and where the right to own and carry any weapon at any time would not be impaired.
He dreams of a state within that nation where there would be no law requiring citizens to obtain a concealed-weapons permit. A state where carrying a concealed weapon would not be treated as a crime. A state where law-abiding citizens could not be denied the right to carry weapons anywhere they wished. He pictures a state where so many well-armed citizens were walking around that no terrorist invader would risk setting foot on our soil.
The truth is that Graf need not simply imagine such a place. It exists. There is a nation where everything Graf would like to legislate in Arizona already is in place and where the government even gives guns to citizens. It's called Iraq.
Of course, Arizona is nowhere near as generous, but if Graf gets his way, we'll get a little closer. He has introduced measures in the Legislature that would make carrying concealed weapons easier while making it more difficult for cities to keep weapons out of places like parks.
"My motivation quite frankly comes from a pesky little thing called the state Constitution," Graf tells me. "One line in there, Article 2, Section 26, simply states that the 'right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired.' "
He's correct. That's exactly what it says. According to Graf, the language offers no room for legal adjustments.
For that reason, the Republican from Green Valley has introduced House Bill 2321, which would reduce the current misdemeanor charges for carrying a concealed weapon without a license to a petty offense.
He introduced House Bill 2318, which prohibits cities and other political subdivisions from passing laws that contradict state law when it comes to the sale or transfer of weapons.
And he introduced House Bill 2320, which says that any "person, organization or entity" that establishes a "gun-free" zone can be sued by any victim of a criminal act that occurs in such a zone when a weapon may have been of assistance to the victim or prevented the crime.
"I look at the Constitution as very clear," he said. "That is: Any regulation is probably too much regulation."
As a constitutional scholar (or at least an enthusiast), Graf understands the U.S. Constitution supersedes all other laws. Given that, I ask if I should be able to say terrible things about him. Should I be able to lie? Should I be able to slander? I should be able to use language for any purpose, good or bad, without fear of retribution?
After all, the First Amendment to the Constitution is very clear. It says in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech or of the press." That's NO law. And yet we have them. We have laws against libel and slander. Laws against inciting riots. Laws against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Graf says that such laws are necessary because certain language is malicious, while simply carrying around a weapon is not. He's correct, but the Constitution doesn't differentiate. It simply says NO law. None.
Even so, I don't take that to mean that I can spread lies about Graf or anyone else.
I take it to mean that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to produce a document that they knew would be subject to interpretation because laws must change with the times and allow for sensible regulations that don't obliterate basic rights.
That way, we get to live in a state where guys like Graf can get concealed-carry licenses, tote a gun almost wherever they want and still sue the pants off guys like me.
http://arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0213montini13.html
Feb. 13, 2003
State Rep. Randy Graf dreams of a nation unafraid to speak of God or to freely dispense guns. A nation where invoking the Lord's name in the Pledge of Allegiance would never be questioned and where the right to own and carry any weapon at any time would not be impaired.
He dreams of a state within that nation where there would be no law requiring citizens to obtain a concealed-weapons permit. A state where carrying a concealed weapon would not be treated as a crime. A state where law-abiding citizens could not be denied the right to carry weapons anywhere they wished. He pictures a state where so many well-armed citizens were walking around that no terrorist invader would risk setting foot on our soil.
The truth is that Graf need not simply imagine such a place. It exists. There is a nation where everything Graf would like to legislate in Arizona already is in place and where the government even gives guns to citizens. It's called Iraq.
Of course, Arizona is nowhere near as generous, but if Graf gets his way, we'll get a little closer. He has introduced measures in the Legislature that would make carrying concealed weapons easier while making it more difficult for cities to keep weapons out of places like parks.
"My motivation quite frankly comes from a pesky little thing called the state Constitution," Graf tells me. "One line in there, Article 2, Section 26, simply states that the 'right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired.' "
He's correct. That's exactly what it says. According to Graf, the language offers no room for legal adjustments.
For that reason, the Republican from Green Valley has introduced House Bill 2321, which would reduce the current misdemeanor charges for carrying a concealed weapon without a license to a petty offense.
He introduced House Bill 2318, which prohibits cities and other political subdivisions from passing laws that contradict state law when it comes to the sale or transfer of weapons.
And he introduced House Bill 2320, which says that any "person, organization or entity" that establishes a "gun-free" zone can be sued by any victim of a criminal act that occurs in such a zone when a weapon may have been of assistance to the victim or prevented the crime.
"I look at the Constitution as very clear," he said. "That is: Any regulation is probably too much regulation."
As a constitutional scholar (or at least an enthusiast), Graf understands the U.S. Constitution supersedes all other laws. Given that, I ask if I should be able to say terrible things about him. Should I be able to lie? Should I be able to slander? I should be able to use language for any purpose, good or bad, without fear of retribution?
After all, the First Amendment to the Constitution is very clear. It says in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech or of the press." That's NO law. And yet we have them. We have laws against libel and slander. Laws against inciting riots. Laws against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Graf says that such laws are necessary because certain language is malicious, while simply carrying around a weapon is not. He's correct, but the Constitution doesn't differentiate. It simply says NO law. None.
Even so, I don't take that to mean that I can spread lies about Graf or anyone else.
I take it to mean that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to produce a document that they knew would be subject to interpretation because laws must change with the times and allow for sensible regulations that don't obliterate basic rights.
That way, we get to live in a state where guys like Graf can get concealed-carry licenses, tote a gun almost wherever they want and still sue the pants off guys like me.
http://arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0213montini13.html
