PA Bill Number: SB945

Title: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals.

Description: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals. ...

Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (199-0)

Last Action Date: Apr 17, 2024

more >>

More events

Severity of gun laws decrease in Arizona :: 03/04/2015

Amber Underdown, 21, loves her Second Amendment rights. “I come from a family that loves going out and shooting guns, so I feel very close to them when I go out shooting,” Underdown said. “Plus, it’s a lot of fun. It’s quite the adrenaline rush.”

Underdown, a Cave Creek native, comes from a long line of gun aficionados. She grew up with guns and said most of her family members enjoy them as well.

The Underdown’s aren’t alone — Arizona has a love affair with guns.

Forty-five gun shows are scheduled in Arizona this year. There is no firearm registry. There is no state permit required to carry openly or conceal a shotgun or rifle unless the carrier is younger than 21 years of age. There are a few places that prohibit guns, including public schools, polling stations on election days and nuclear generating stations.

The Center for American Progress ranks Arizona as No. 4 in the nation for highest levels of gun violence in 2014. The CAP reported 14.6 gun deaths for every 100,000 people in Arizona during 2010. That was 40 percent higher than the 10.3 national average.

A study done by the Behavioral Research Center’s Rocky Mountain Poll states that Arizona’s support for stricter firearm laws has decreased from 42 percent in 2013 to 33 percent in 2015.

Charles Heller, the media coordinator for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, supports the state’s gun laws.

“They are a tool,” Heller said. “If you have a problem, you don’t try and limit your tools. Guns are valid and valuable tools. You don’t reduce your tool cabinet when you need to do a project.”

While gun violence holds a high rate in the state, many Arizonans stand by their Second Amendment rights.

“I live alone, so it helps me sleep at night knowing I can protect myself, because you just can’t count on the police showing up in time,” Underdown said.

Lawmakers in Phoenix think along the same lines. They consistently pass some of the most pro-gun laws in the country.

“We have the best gun laws in the nation,” said Alan Korwin, owner and operator of the Bloomfield Press in Scottsdale and gunlaws.com. “People who want their freedoms cling to them very tightly and check encroachments on their freedoms. Efforts to deny us rights that we already have are not well-received. We are the linchpin of freedom. Firearms are part of that reason.”

Arizona consistently ranks as the best state for gun owners due to its non-restrictive laws, a competitive shooting culture and Gunsite, which is the country’s oldest and most well-known private shooting school. The Bloomfield Press, the largest publisher and distributor of books on gun laws, ranked Arizona as the No. 1 state for favorable gun laws in 2010.

This year, a number of pro-gun bills have been proposed, including House Bill 2320, which would exempt Arizonans who carry a concealed weapons permit from being disarmed in state and local government-owned properties, unless everyone is required for a weapons screening, as a method of self defense.

Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is not against firearm ownership, but feels as though Arizona should be more restrictive on gun laws. “I think this is much bigger than guns,” Everitt said. “Our concern, like the Tucson shooting, is that someone with every red flag in the world owning a gun, or someone that failed a background check being able to go to a private gun owner and purchase a gun.”

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2015/03/severity-of-gun-laws-decrease-in-arizona Federal judge denies government stall in gun transfer case

The same federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas who last month handed the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a significant victory in a case challenging a long-standing ban on interstate handgun sales yesterday denied what was essentially an attempt by the federal government to stall the case for two months while considering whether to appeal the ruling.

Call it the “Jack Benny strategy,” referring to an old skit by the late comedian in which a robber asks “Your money or your life” and Benny responded, “I’m thinking it over.” That, essentially, is what attorneys for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice tried to tell U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division after he ruled against them last month in the case of Mance v. Holder.

That was the case in which Judge O’Connor ruled that “the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.” He also applied strict scrutiny to determine whether a ban on such transfers is allowable under the constitution. It was something of a double win for CCRKBA in a case financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation.

“We’re delighted that Judge O’Connor is not going to simply allow the government to stall this ruling,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a press release yesterday. “This case could have significant ramifications nationwide, and allowing a two-month stay while the government essentially claims it will be thinking about whether to appeal obviously was not warranted.”

CCRKBA and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura and Texas attorney William B. “Bill” Mateja of Fish & Richardson in Dallas. They’re likely going to be busy preparing for what will almost certainly be the government’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Should the government appeal and lose again, the result could be shattering because it would undo one of the key tenets of gun control over the past 47 years. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the interstate transfer of handguns; that is, a resident of one state cannot travel to another state and legally purchase a handgun. Under existing law, a handgun must be shipped by one federally-licensed dealer in one state to a dealer in the home state of the buyer.

But that prohibition was essentially made irrelevant with the creation of the National Instant Check System. A person legally able to buy a handgun in Seattle should just as easily be able to legally purchase that sidearm in San Antonio, because that person would pass the federal background check regardless in which location the transaction occurred.

The lawsuit was brought by CCRKBA on behalf of Texas resident Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., and Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, both of Washington, D.C. Mance is a federally licensed firearms dealer who would sell handguns directly to consumers in other states, but under current law, he is prohibited from doing so. The Hansons are fully qualified under federal law, and laws in Texas and the District of Columbia, to purchase and possess handguns.

But the interstate handgun transfer ban in GCA ’68 won’t let them directly do business. When the case was originally filed last July, Gottlieb noted how unnecessary that prohibition has become.

“It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb said. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”

Judge O’Connor’s ruling underscored that contention, noting, “The federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unique compared to other firearms restrictions because it does not target certain people (such as felons or the mentally ill), conduct (such as carrying firearms into government buildings or schools), or distinctions among certain classes of firearms (such as fully automatic weapons or magazine capacity).

“Instead,” Judge O’Connor explained, “the federal interstate handgun transfer ban targets the entire national market of handgun sales and directly burdens law-abiding, responsible citizens who seek to complete otherwise lawful transactions for handguns.”

Using the strict scrutiny approach, the judge added, “By failing to provide specific information to demonstrate the reasonable fit between this ban and illegal sales and lack of notice in light of the Brady Act amendments to the 1968 Gun Control Act, the ban is not substantially related to address safety concerns. Thus, even under intermediate scrutiny, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.”

The fact that this case was decided so quickly should send a message. It’s a no-brainer, a slam dunk; call it what you like, but it just might be that the interstate handgun transfer will soon be a historical footnote.

---------------------------

Got an opinion about this column? Share your thoughts in the "Comments" section below.