ArizonaShooting.com

"The #1 Resource for Shooters in Arizona!"
It is currently January 21st, 2018, 1:24 am


All times are UTC - 7 hours


Custom Search





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 2nd, 2018, 5:40 pm 
Offline
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)

Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:02 am
Posts: 7
Legislative season is upon us again. Take a look at Arizona HB 2057 introduced by Rep. David Stringer of Prescott, and drafted by your's truly.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018/01/01/bill-seeks-to-override-future-federal-gun-restrictions/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 2nd, 2018, 7:12 pm 
Offline
AZS; Woohoo!
AZS; Woohoo!
User avatar

Joined: June 2nd, 2008, 1:14 pm
Posts: 2184
I hate to say it but the maximum age part is the critical part for me.

_________________
"Peace Is A Dream Only Achieved When Good Men Are Willing To Commit Great Violence Upon Evil Men


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 2nd, 2018, 8:02 pm 
Offline
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)

Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:02 am
Posts: 7
ynotaz wrote:
I hate to say it but the maximum age part is the critical part for me.


When we passed that part last time it made it through the House and Senate up to Brewer's desk, only to be vetoed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 2nd, 2018, 8:45 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home

Joined: May 28th, 2011, 9:02 am
Posts: 6722
Quote:
And just to be sure that folks who turn 46 don’t lose their gun rights because of new federal laws, HB 2057 also would expand the definition of the militia to remove the maximum age. But it would add a new requirement that they be “capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”


Every individual is capable of acting while standing next to somebody. What does that mean? Would some judge hostile to our rights assert that this requires enrollment in an organization of some sort?

What would be an example of a person incapable of acting in concert for the common defense?

_________________
Guns don't kill people.
Gun-free zones kill people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 2nd, 2018, 11:31 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home
User avatar

Joined: March 26th, 2009, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3840
Legislation can not extend the maximum age of militia members. The maximum age is fixed by Article 16, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution per Article 16, Section 1:

Quote:
Article 16 Section 1 - Composition of militia
1. Composition of militia

Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the laws of the United States or of this state.

_________________
“I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
― John Wayne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 5:30 am 
Offline
AZS Addict
AZS Addict
User avatar

Joined: November 12th, 2009, 1:57 pm
Posts: 910
Location: N.PHX near Ben Avery Range
Age discrimination needs to be sorted in that Article 16, Section 1. That is a backdoor for the progressives.

_________________
[b][b]Sheep dogs welcome.[/b and an extreme distaste for "thread locker"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 6:19 am 
Offline
AZS; Woohoo!
AZS; Woohoo!
User avatar

Joined: July 14th, 2005, 4:02 am
Posts: 2583
Location: North - Phoenix, AZ
And from the article "For example, he said U.S. citizens are, in fact, allowed to possess certain machine guns. Taylor said, though, nothing in this legislation would exempt Arizonans who want one from having to go through the special process now in place to get licensed for one,", leads me to believe that the Representative needs a new attorney. One does not get licensed, one has to pay a TAX to own a NFA item.

_________________
"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around, and the smart people are reloading."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 8:20 am 
Offline
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)

Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:02 am
Posts: 7
storage_man wrote:
And from the article "For example, he said U.S. citizens are, in fact, allowed to possess certain machine guns. Taylor said, though, nothing in this legislation would exempt Arizonans who want one from having to go through the special process now in place to get licensed for one,", leads me to believe that the Representative needs a new attorney. One does not get licensed, one has to pay a TAX to own a NFA item.


Hi,

As the attorney in question, you will note that quotes in the media are not always quotes used exactly in their precise context, but things assembled from what a reporter took away from an hour long interview. My discussion of licensing was in part of the conversation concerning the different classes of FFL and their ability to handle things which may or may not be deemed subject to the NFA. I explained tax paid transfer and registration in the interview, but of course there were many topics discussed which were not presented in a short news article. All in all, I believe the reporter (Mr. Fischer, a non-firearm guy) did an outstanding job getting the main point of the bill out and not going the route of "we're all going to die" meets "think of the children" that we encounter with such frequency in the media. I believe he did his best to craft a neutral article out of an hour which included citations and references to no fewer than 8 Supreme Court cases and many technicalities involving legal interpretation.

As to the age issue and the AZ Constitution, there is a concurrent resolution attached to the bill, also referenced in both paragraphs 5 and 26 of the news article, placing an amendment to the AZ Constitution on the ballot.

As to the language, it mirrors the definition of "militia" used by the SCOTUS...

"comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which was in turn paraphrasing "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states" from Presser v. State of Illinois, 6 S.Ct. 580, 116 U.S. 252, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886)

While we all understand both the 2nd Amendment of the U.S Constitution, and Article II Section 26 of Arizona Constitution to preclude any infringement on an individual right, we live in the reality of an upheld and unchecked 10 year "Assault Weapon" ban from 1994 to 2004 based solely on the ability of Congress to regulate "interstate commerce". We are likewise 215 years too late to ask the country to ignore Marbury v Madison, so any fight against similar legislation will take place in the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the ballot box, and for the Court, making a presentation of their own language, based on precedents of their own making, is how to give the Justices interested in upholding the Second Amendment, a reason to decide in our favor... Re-read Miller and Heller on the question of, and importance of, judicial notice in the tests put forth by the Court. Had Miller's attorney actually appeared before the court, and brought evidence to support Miller's assertion, the last 79 years would likely have been different; but that isn't the world we live in. Legislation such as this must be designed from the outset to be taken to court. The target audience ultimately consists of 9 people in black robes.

I hope this helps with some of the questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 4:56 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home

Joined: May 28th, 2011, 9:02 am
Posts: 6722
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. I appreciate it, as I am sure many others do.

Could you give an example of a person who is not "capable of acting in concert for the common defense"?

_________________
Guns don't kill people.
Gun-free zones kill people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arizona HB 2057
New postPosted: January 3rd, 2018, 7:51 pm 
Offline
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)

Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:02 am
Posts: 7
milquetoast wrote:
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. I appreciate it, as I am sure many others do.

Could you give an example of a person who is not "capable of acting in concert for the common defense"?


Certain extremely stringent pacifists or objectors perhaps, but really nearly anyone actually willing to do so should be able to make a concerted effort to aid in the common defense. Can you drive a truck, analyse some data, collect some data, operate communications equipment, bake a cake to feed those doing any of those or other activities, then you appear to be capable of acting in concert for the common defense. U.S. v Miller's "acting in concert" is certainly more inclusive than Presser's "capable of bearing arms", because even those with physical or other limitations may still be capable of acting in concert for the common defense.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 


All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group