In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Suit seeks uniform gun-check rules
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Suit seeks uniform gun-check rules
Mark Henle/The Arizona Republic
Ernest Hancock tries to check his gun with Kevin Voigt at the Department of Revenue.
Charles Kelly
The Arizona Republic
May 15, 2002 12:00:00
It started because businessman Ernest Hancock wanted a convenient place to park his pistol while he paid his sales taxes at the Department of Revenue.
Hancock, the owner of a Phoenix restaurant called Pizza Belly and a well-known Libertarian, asked the department to check his gun on site, rather than nearly a third of a mile away with the Capitol Police. He was refused.
Now Hancock, in a special action filed Tuesday with the state Supreme Court, is asking for a ruling that the state can't tell him whether he can carry a gun on public property.
"Arizona state government was never given any authority to restrict in any way the right to bear arms," Hancock said.
He argues that the state Constitution and legislation leading up to it say the state's only role is to protect individual rights, including gun rights.
Hancock's action stems from, but goes beyond, a campaign by Valley gun activists to get operators of public buildings, including the Department of Revenue, to set "reasonable" gun-checking policies in line with a law passed two years ago. If successful, it would iron out inconsistencies in those policies, which vary widely.
If you're in downtown Phoenix, you can use one of several locations with gun lockers, including the Municipal Court at 300 W. Washington St. and the Calvin C. Goode Municipal Building at 251 W. Washington St. Phoenix city libraries also have gun lockers, and operators of outlying public buildings can choose to check guns or let visitors carry them in.
In Tempe, you must check your gun at the Tempe Police headquarters downtown, or call for a police officer to take charge of it if you're at an outlying public building such as a library. The officer will return it to that location when you are ready to pick it up.
The police will hold weapons in Scottsdale, unless you are visiting a public building where a security guard can take charge of your weapon. Mesa provides gun lockers in buildings with public notices prohibiting guns, and lets gun carriers freely use unposted buildings. In Chandler, police would take custody of a gun if one needed to be checked, but that situation hasn't arisen, City Attorney Dennis O'Neill said.
Glendale has installed gun lockers at about 15 sites following pressure by gun activists. They complained about a previous policy, which let a gun-toter summon a police officer to take custody of a gun, but then forced him or her to go to a police station to pick it up.
Tim Weaver, 38, a Glendale market research analyst, said he has checked his gun at public buildings in Glendale and at the main Phoenix library. Despite the law the Legislature passed in 2000 to simplify things by taking away from cities and counties the ability to write gun laws, he says citizens still are hassled by all the varied gun-checking policies.
"I think they're asinine," Weaver said. "The whole idea . . . was to end this patchwork quilt of policies and ordinances."
Just as the policies differ, so do opinions about them. Hancock thinks the Revenue Department's requirement that he take a long hike to check his gun is unreasonable.
But William Inman, general counsel for the department, said its policy is set by the state Department of Administration and satisfies the law.
"You can question the wisdom of having to walk to the Capitol building," he said, "but we are providing a method for checking weapons." http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0515GunCheck15.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Mark Henle/The Arizona Republic
Ernest Hancock tries to check his gun with Kevin Voigt at the Department of Revenue.
Charles Kelly
The Arizona Republic
May 15, 2002 12:00:00
It started because businessman Ernest Hancock wanted a convenient place to park his pistol while he paid his sales taxes at the Department of Revenue.
Hancock, the owner of a Phoenix restaurant called Pizza Belly and a well-known Libertarian, asked the department to check his gun on site, rather than nearly a third of a mile away with the Capitol Police. He was refused.
Now Hancock, in a special action filed Tuesday with the state Supreme Court, is asking for a ruling that the state can't tell him whether he can carry a gun on public property.
"Arizona state government was never given any authority to restrict in any way the right to bear arms," Hancock said.
He argues that the state Constitution and legislation leading up to it say the state's only role is to protect individual rights, including gun rights.
Hancock's action stems from, but goes beyond, a campaign by Valley gun activists to get operators of public buildings, including the Department of Revenue, to set "reasonable" gun-checking policies in line with a law passed two years ago. If successful, it would iron out inconsistencies in those policies, which vary widely.
If you're in downtown Phoenix, you can use one of several locations with gun lockers, including the Municipal Court at 300 W. Washington St. and the Calvin C. Goode Municipal Building at 251 W. Washington St. Phoenix city libraries also have gun lockers, and operators of outlying public buildings can choose to check guns or let visitors carry them in.
In Tempe, you must check your gun at the Tempe Police headquarters downtown, or call for a police officer to take charge of it if you're at an outlying public building such as a library. The officer will return it to that location when you are ready to pick it up.
The police will hold weapons in Scottsdale, unless you are visiting a public building where a security guard can take charge of your weapon. Mesa provides gun lockers in buildings with public notices prohibiting guns, and lets gun carriers freely use unposted buildings. In Chandler, police would take custody of a gun if one needed to be checked, but that situation hasn't arisen, City Attorney Dennis O'Neill said.
Glendale has installed gun lockers at about 15 sites following pressure by gun activists. They complained about a previous policy, which let a gun-toter summon a police officer to take custody of a gun, but then forced him or her to go to a police station to pick it up.
Tim Weaver, 38, a Glendale market research analyst, said he has checked his gun at public buildings in Glendale and at the main Phoenix library. Despite the law the Legislature passed in 2000 to simplify things by taking away from cities and counties the ability to write gun laws, he says citizens still are hassled by all the varied gun-checking policies.
"I think they're asinine," Weaver said. "The whole idea . . . was to end this patchwork quilt of policies and ordinances."
Just as the policies differ, so do opinions about them. Hancock thinks the Revenue Department's requirement that he take a long hike to check his gun is unreasonable.
But William Inman, general counsel for the department, said its policy is set by the state Department of Administration and satisfies the law.
"You can question the wisdom of having to walk to the Capitol building," he said, "but we are providing a method for checking weapons." http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0515GunCheck15.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Commentary by PAT MURPHY
Whew! How relieved voters in Idaho's First Congressional District must be, knowing that Steve Gothard's demand as a condition of him serving in Congress has been rejected by police in Washington, D.C.
For those who missed the story:
Gothard is the presumptive Libertarian candidate running against incumbent Congressman Butch Otter, a Republican.
But even before the November election, Gothard has laid down this demand: if elected, he won't go to Washington unless the local government makes an exception to gun laws and allows him to run around town with a 9-mm submachine gun and a "backup" pistol tucked under his coat.
Well, wouldn't you know it. Those hardheaded cops in Washington informed him they'd make no exceptions, not even for Gothard, a man who apparently considers himself worthy of special treatment.
So, now that he knows he wouldn't be allowed to carry his beloved guns around the streets of Washington, Gothard's run for Congress becomes pointless, except for attention he's created for himself.
However, there is another government job that would allow Gothard to carry guns all day: he could enlist in the Army, ask for assignment upfront in Afghanistan where he'd be surrounded with guns and the constant sounds of gun fire and maybe even have a chance to shoot and kill someone.
Gothard would consider that paradise.
American families who willingly shared shortages and sacrifices of World War II enrolled in a range of wartime programs to stretch scarce resources-scrap collection programs, rationing, backyard Victory gardens.
And there also were "meatless" days, when families gave up meat to make sure troops overseas had plenty.
Is that spirit of sacrifice alive today at a time when states and the nation are facing financial tough times?
It probably is too much to expect the president and the Congress to stop ladling out billions of dollars in unnecessary favors to special interest groups, as the $190 billion farm subsidies bill illustrates.
But what if all state and federal employees, who have the nation's most secure jobs were suddenly gripped with a compulsion for extraordinary service to their country, were to forgo salaries on "payless" days to get their governments over the hump?
Consider just the impact of a "payless" day on the federal budget.
The National Taxpayers Union, which tracks Washington's spending habits, says there are 2.7 million federal employees. Their average salary, NTU says, is $46,728.
So, if all 2.7 million were to forgo a single day's pay ($180 average), the saving would be $486 million.
Not much by Washington standards.
But the gesture in itself might set a tone that could shame the Big Wasters into joining in sacrifice for a change.
http://www.mtexpress.com/2002/02-05-15/02-05-15murphy.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878