I sit on a civic organization's standing committee that reviews bills at the Arizona Legislature, keeping an eye out for legislation that will infringe civil liberties, so that legislators may be contacted, civil libertarians may be brought to testify in committee, and, if necessary, the public may be put on alert to phone or write their legislators. The name of the organization and other details aren't important; the point of this article is not to embarrass anyone but rather to provide an illustration. Suffice it to say that the civic organization in question is nonpartisan and attracts many members who are genuine left-liberals.
In a draft alert notice, sent to the committee to review and rework before being released to the public, the committee's chairman included a firearms bill, HB 2027 with a note that he was leaning away from inclusion in the weekly alert but wanted our thoughts. The bill adds the following language to the statue defining the Sheriff's powers, ARS § 11-441:
Notwithstanding section 13-3112, the sheriff may authorize members of the sheriff's volunteer posse who have received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board to carry a deadly weapon without a permit while on duty.and the following to the statute concerning weapons misconduct, ARS § 13-3102:
D. Subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section shall not apply to: 1. A member of a sheriff's volunteer posse or reserve organization who has received firearms training that is approved by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board and who is authorized by the sheriff to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to section 11-441. 2. A retired law enforcement officer who possesses a photographic identification that states the person is honorably retired from a law enforcement agency.
in addition to cleaning up and modernizing some language in the two statutes. A little background: ARS § 13-3112 is Arizona's concealed carry statute.
A very benign bill, in other words, allowing members of the Sheriff's "Volunteer Posse"--largely retirees who do data entry, neighborhood safety patrols, and the like--to carry a concealed weapon, on or off duty, without a CCW permit if they have completed the (stricter) Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board qualification. But the language our chairman drafted to send to the public, just in case we gave organizational opposition to the bill our approval, makes it sound as though HB 2027 was establishing the Gestapo. In full:
The bill contains a provision which allows a Sheriff to authorize volunteer posse members to carry a weapons without a permit while on duty.
ISSUES: Given that there is very little training and virtually no screening for posse members, the provision in question should be stricken. It opens the door to severe abuses of the rights of people who might be targeted by posse members.
POSITION: OPPOSE
A few mistakes and misconceptions stand out immediately. The first is that the committee chairman, despite having been a major party candidate for the Legislature not too long ago, was seemingly unaware that one needn't have a permit at all to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon in Arizona. Granted, ARS § 13-3102 begins with language that makes it sound as though one needs a permit to carry, but contains a subsection explicitly authorizing open carry. Moreoever, that open carry is legal in Arizona is common public knowledge, except perhaps in our chairman's social circles.
More alarming is his idea of what people do when they carry firearms. As far as I can tell, carrying a firearm or other weapon doesn't cause one to begin "targeting" anyone or turn someone benign into someone who would severely abuse rights, no matter if the weapon in question is carried openly in a belt holster or concealed in a shoulder holster. (Picking up police culture is another matter entirely, perhaps far more dangerous.) Open carry since before statehood and nearly a decade and a half of concealed carry in Arizona should have illustrated this point.
They have to many of us, but it's rather clear that our committee's chairman hasn't spent much time around those who own and carry firearms, or at least not around those he knows to carry. Without any real experience with gun owners, he is mentally free to fill in the unknowns, to make up just what people do when they carry weapons, that they must "target" others.
There's a fear at work, what Phoenix-area publisher Alan Korwin has called "hoplophobia". The name makes it sound clinical, which may not be the case, but as with all "phobias" it is irrational.
But why would it be so much more common in left-wingers? Since there has yet to be a definitive study--and if you have seen one, please bring it to my attention--I cannot say, but I suspect it is cultural. It stems from a lack of familiarity, but with a twist. Being in favor of increased restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, and not being a gun owner, has been a trust signal on the Left much as the equally bizarre global warming denialism has been for free marketeers. Being ignorant and irrational and publicly saying or writing stupid things on the topic is a mark of belonging to an in-group, and gun owners are a brutish Other just as to the casual libertarian, those who stand by sound science on global warming must be "anti-human" socialists, statists, and hoaxsters.
Granted, the Left has come around to the point where prominent Democrat politicians are gun owners, and even local Arizona Democrats in the legislature have concealed carry permits. One would be tempted to think the days of hoplophobia are behind us, but our committee chairman's reaction was a reminder of just how long these cultural quirks can persist past their time of political currency. Knee-jerk reactions don't go away on their own.
My response: I clarified the bill's implications, reminded him that AZ is an open carry state, and asked whether he has tried to pass the range portion of the peace officer firearms certification. I treated shooting as a normal activity, because it is, and wrote with the presumption that our chairman was a gun owner, because that ought to be the norm. And by unanimous vote, the bill was dropped from our alert notice.
If we want to solidify the gains made in expanding and protecting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, we can't treat either owning or carrying arms as a shameful or odd activity. Gun owners are not "nuts" and not the brutish Other driven by a piece of metal and plastic to start "targeting" people, but people to whom gun ownership was shameful for so long will never know that if gun owners are merely people they read about in the paper and see on the news. We are their friends and colleagues who often share their values and interests. For their sake and for ours, let's hold our heads high.
©2009 B. S. Kalafut, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Last modified: Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of B. S. Kalafut only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. B. S. Kalafut is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by B. S. Kalafut of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By B. S. Kalafut |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-02-04 07:56:57
The baked-in fear that liberals have of other humans isn't limited to guns although that is certainly a continual source of their fear and target of their lobbying.
I live on the edge of several million acres of national forest. Every weekend carloads of people come to the forest to shoot. Sometimes it sounds like a war behind my house. My neighbor, we call him Wyatt Erp, shoots almost every single day for an hour. Our beautiful "buffer zone" community has also attracted the nature-loving liberals from the city. Now several of these people are mounting an effort to have our county enact ordinances against shooting. There are already restrictions on proximity to homes but other than that its shoot at will around here. At public meetings these people claim they have tried to "talk to" the shooter. The problem is that the only result they would be satisfied with is if they could be assured they would never again hear gunfire while in their home. Given where they chose to live, that is just not going to happen.
On a related topic, a guy I know owns an enormous tract of land. His driveway is over a half mile long with two coded gates, one at the road and another closer to the house. After county officials dismantled one gate and broke the other to gain access to his property to take photograph inside the windows of his home, the owner posted signs on his gate quoting the US Constitution. (BTW, the photographer scared the wife who was abed sick with the flu nearly to death...lucky she isn't a shooter or this story would have a totally different spin....)
A local liberal wrote a ridiculous letter to the editor describing the sign posted on the property owner's gate, the quote from the Constitution, as LOOSELY BRIDLED VIOLENCE and she was concerned that another RUBY RIDGE incident was brewing. This retired guy and his wife live alone in a home they built themselves and they just want their privacy. This drives liberals NUTS!! How dare they not agree to be assimilated and homogenized? That individualism is an affront to the liberal psychie and destablizes them into completely irrational behavior and dialogue.
The thinking, the mindset instilled and enforced by public schools and a nearly entirely liberal congress is the problem, not the particular issue it is applied to.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-02-05 00:51:28
Being a liberal myself, I think you, too, are letting your imagination get away you in thinking the liberal to be afraid of other humans. Maybe what you are seeing is odd behavior from city folk, but it doesn\'t seem like any liberalism on their part has anything to do with it.
Posted By: Natalie Schultz
Date: 2009-02-07 10:55:54
Jahfre Fire Eater, I wouldn't trust in the Constitution to save you for too long regarding gun rights if Liberals are moving in. You had better get together with the locals to write some new legislation specifically guaranteeing that under no circumstance in the future shall any hunter's right be impeded because it offends some people. Do it now, or you'll end up like NY and soon New England - the city folks have destroyed the country.
As for the county dismantling someone's gate, was it on that person's private property? The government CANNOT do that. Ruby Ridge? HELLO!?! Do those moronic liberals not realize that the ONLY criminal in that case was the ATF - the Government? Duh. The Federal Government was found guilty in both the Waco and Ruby Ridge massacres.
So, WHY did the government tear down your neighbor's gates? I am very interested to know the details.
The reason Liberals are against guns is because the Second Amendment guarantees our INDIVIDUAL Rights. Liberals believe in GROUP rights, such as Latinos, Blacks, gays etc. That is what Socialism and Communism are all about. They are against guns because an individual can defend oneself from a liberal attack against one's person or property (like Clinton tried at Ruby Ridge and Waco). Liberals believe in brainwashing to control the masses. Conservatives and Libertarians believe in individuals thinking for themselves and defending the Constitution which protects our rights, and we know that the Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to defend us all from such attacks on individual liberty.
Liberals use criminal acts perpertrated by HUMANS with guns to justify the destruction of our Second Amendment Rights. Guns don't kill people, people do.
I have a brilliant idea: All the locals should chip in and purchase 10 surveillance cameras and install them all around the house of the liberal who complained about your neighbor who posted the Constitution on his gate. Then post the feed online via Google, and when he/she complains, just say "Well, you did say that the Constitutional right to private property implies an act of violence, therefore your caring neighbors have graciously gotten together to make sure that the whole world is watching over you to guarantee your safety. And, Google, the Federal Government's most eager partner in protecting all Americans from the possibility of violence that may befall them when in the privacy of their own homes, is the safest place to live. Don't worry, Big Brother will protect you. You are now in good hands. We'll all be watching over you, your personal guardian angels!"
Posted By: Brian Jones
Date: 2009-03-01 22:55:55
Excellent article. I just took three handguns I inherited to the gunsmith for inspection and any needed repairs before I start heading to the range on a regular basis. I tell all my friends about it for the exact reason you're stating here. I've fired weapons before, but it was a long time ago. I see most people I know afraid of guns and it disheartens me. There are a lot of positive effects from gun ownership and an armed citizenry. There are also a lot of problems that arise when criminals and invading forces know most people are not armed.