The NRA Owns Arizona’s Gun Loving Governor
Read Time:1 Minute, 19 Second
If you’re a cop in Arizona hoping to get guns off the streets with a buyback program good luck. In Arizona, the governor and most of the legislature is owned by the powerful NRA.
Yesterday crazy republican Governor Jan Brewer, long a dear friend of the fanatic NRA, signed into law a bill forcing cities to sell any guns they buy back, in lieu of destroying them as has been policy, says Reuters. Curiously, the law doesn’t include any sort of penalty, in other words no one knows what would happen to cities that don’t comply with this ridiculous law.
Supporters of the NRA-backed measure say local governments were wasting money by not grabbing the revenue to be had by reselling the guns. But opponents say it sort of defeats the purpose of the popular program.
“This action by the governor is not only outrageous, but it is insensitive for us now to be putting these guns back on the streets,” one Democratic state senator fumed. “That’s just plain wrong.”
Yes, senator, it is wrong, but as long as the Republicans and the NRA own your state there’s little you’ll be able to do. It’s clearly what the people want.
Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Can I buy the gun that shoots him?
Guns are legal to buy in Arizona as in any other state and buy back programs will never change that. If I’m a law abiding citizen that passes a back ground check and fill in the forms required to buy one of this guns from the government where the hell is the harm on that? I will save some money and the state will generate some revenue. After all if I want a gun and the state does not sell me one, I might as well go the and FFL gun shop and still buy one there. Or it could be worst, I could buy it from a private seller and not be even required to pass background check. My ability and right to buy an gun will not be affected if I buy it from the government or not, period! What is your problem????
You do make a good point. One thing to consider, you hinted at. Buying from the state, you can be sure the background check ore made. Even with gun shops, that is not always the case. Bribes can be offered and taken.
The point that the people supporting buy back programs are trying to make is that the guns would be permanently taken out of circulation. Selling them at a loss rather destroys the point of the program.
Isn’t then the reason for this gun buy back misleading? There will always be guns in circulation, they are legal to buy by the citizens of this nation. Millions of citizens across the nation buy guns ever year and I bet citizens of Arizona rank at the top. Just by analizing the number of murders every year and the number of gun transactions 99.99% percent of gun owners will not murder anyone. If you want to take guns out of criculation then what you are advocating is a total gun ban and that is of course illegal. if thats teh case why hide it behind a so call gun buy back? If guns are and continue to be legal to own then I ask myself why would you not want a fellow citizen interested in owning a gun buy it from the state where you can guaratee that such person will have to pass background check before selling it him or her?
Lastly regarding bribes, of course they can happen, people ignore and break all kinds of laws every day. That is why you can go to court and present such evidence and if found guilty they will have to pay. I’m all for enforcing current laws, however insetad of generalazing lets keep it real, you are innocent until proveen guilty. So I refuse to accuse FFL’s all around Arizona of breaking the law just because there are ways like bribes that could incite breaking the law.
Your problem is, you are on the opposite side of the fence. You believe people should be able to purchase weapons freely without any evidence they are qualified or competent.
Tell us, would you fly in a plane if the pilot were not required to prove his competence to fly safely? Would you ride in a car with someone if all they had to demonstrate was they were not a wanted felon? 99.9% of all drivers will never kill anyone, either. Would you still allow yourself or your children to ride with someone that might not have passed even the ludicrously simple Arizona test?
Yet, you would allow people to possess and use a deadly weapon with no more proof than a background check. It might be the only firearm they had ever handled, yet you would trust yourself and your children around them?
No one accused FFLs (no apostrophe, it is not a possessive) “all around Arizona” of breaking the law. That was your unwarranted assumption. But I know from personal experience it has happened.
I lived in AZ for 25 years and owned a wide variety of firearms. I was a regular customer at Jensen’s Custom ammunition in Tucson. No one there ever broke the law that I know of, and they were always fair and courteous when dealing with me. That is not to say that every pawn shop and privately-licensed FFL person was as honorable. To assume otherwise would be amazingly naive.
James first let get this small thing out of the way, English is my second language so I still struggle a bit with it, hopefully you will be a little bit understanding about that.
Now regarding the points you make, I have no problem with requiring some type of training in firearms handling so long as it is kept affordable and it is not use as a deterrence by the state officials by making it too onerous. I’m perplex why you make the assumption that I’m against that as I never said in my previous post that I was. By the way I’m a certified firearms instructor by the NRA and by by state certification board.
Second you brought the issue of FFLs illegal activities, I don’t know why then. When I go the an FFL dealer I assume it is operating under the law unless I have evidence to the contrary. If it is breaking the law then let the LEAs do their job and make them pay, I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact FFls in Arizona reported suspicious straw man activities and it was the ATF that asked them to continue with the transactions as part of the Fast and Furious investigation. Two American citizens resulted murdered by criminals using some of those weapons and not to mention many more victims in Latin America. So please ask our government to follow their own rules and laws.
Third going back to issue of the original articles, under current law I can’t see how the buy back program is going to take guns out of circulation. I asset again that if that’s the purpose of it then it is misleading. Citizens currently can legally buy guns, that’s the fact. I would rather have them buy them from the state where you can guarantee (at least in theory) that background checks are performed. I see in theory because the matter of fact is there way too many examples of state officials easily bribed. You saw in the Atlanta School District and you saw it in the NYC traffic tickets scandals. You see I’m in no way naïve.
No problem with your English. I have been a professional writer and trainer most of my life. I might be a bit more sensitive to the nuances than most.
My proposal for years has been to license people to own firearms much as for operating a car or plane. I had a post on here some time ago about there very subject. You can see it at:
https://madmikesamerica.com/2012/12/guns-or-no-guns/
Unlike people on either side of the gun fence, I believe in responsible, workable solutions. We first must recognize that no law will keep guns from the hands of criminals. I now live in Brazil where gun ownership by private individuals is difficult and rare. Yet, the criminals, particularly drug dealers (traficantes) are often better-armed them the police. Here in a city of about one million, shootings are common enough that they are often not reported in the media.
True, they are often disputes among drug dealers, but innocent bystanders are also often shot. Sound familiar?
What the buy-back programs are probably most successful at doing is getting the weapons out of the hands of the unqualified.
Selling them back to other unqualified people is not going to help anything. If you are a certified CCW instructor, ask yourself, are any of your passing students likely to sell a weapon back to the government? It’s the people that don’t use their gun, ever train with it and probably never even clean it that are more likely to participate.
As far as FFL people taking bribes, I pointed it out as a fact know to me personally. You are the one that exaggerated it into a larger accusation.
I hope you will read my essay abut “Guns Or No Guns” before you reply. Yu may see that we are not so far apart as you assume.
Regarding the FFLs issue lets just leave at that, you think I exaggerated I think you brought an issue that in the discourse of the original article was pointless. So I will just leave at that we respectfully disagree.
Regarding the essay I think I can agree with many of the points you make. I have been to Venezuela, Puerto Rico and Brazil in the last 10 years and both have very strict gun laws or outright bans and as you say that has not deter the criminal elements ability to acquire guns.
You bring two very important arguments. One is the training issue and I as trained person and someone who pass that knowledge to others I would agree 100% percent with that. As with driver licenses right now CCW regulations fall under each state jurisdiction. The state where I live requires training for both, possession and CCW. I will point out however that statistics do not show a difference in gun related accidents between does states that require by law training and those that do not. It will be interesting to see an in depth study about that.
Second you make the point that it is personal decision and indeed it is. The ramifications of defending our own life and family’s can be sometimes unjust in our current legal system. Yet on 2011 there were over 600 justifiable homicides in the Nation plus many, many more incidents were there were no deaths but the use of a gun in self defense helped save lives. So as you said with just can focus on one side of the fence. Here is one example I found. http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/
I would suggest that you take a look at what it is now a perennial classic written by one of the most well versed experts in the topic Massad Ayoob: In the Gravest Extreme. You will certainly find it helpful for future research you might do in this area. Please take a time and look at his bio in wikipedia: “While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob
I will also like to congratulate you because it is the first article I read from someone from the “other” side of the fence that do not relies on gun bans or magazine bans to try to understand and find solutions on the issue.
Lastly when did I said we were indeed far apart? I checked my previous post and I never did.
Can we give Arizona back to Mexico?
I thought they already took it back. Didn’t anyone notice? You can spend weeks in AZ and never hear a word of English.
That’s true….same in Miami.
As a former Arizona resident, I can testify that the antediluvian politics has been the norm there for decades.
This governor is one nasty piece of work, and yet she keeps getting elected. This is just the latest in a string of Arizona hate laws.