Gov. Jan Brewer said she won’t support any new laws to limit who can carry a gun, even in the wake of the killing of students and teachers in Connecticut.
“I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,’’ the governor said Tuesday, which also was the second anniversary of the shootings in Tucson at a community event being led by then-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that left six dead and others, including her, permanently injured.
The governor acknowledged that, in the wake of those tragedies “people are concerned.’’ But Brewer said that should not translate into new restrictions.
“I am not a proponent of gun control,’’ she said. Instead, Brewer said she will continue to follow the trajectory she has outlined in the last two years when she vetoed measures to allow weapons into places where they are not now permitted, like rights of way on college campuses and in public buildings that don’t have metal detectors.
“I’m a proponent of safe areas and, certainly, safe schools,’’ the governor said.
“I think we all can agree that we need to assure that our schools are safe and that public areas are safe,’’ she continued. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean gun control. We have to come up with solutions.’’
The governor, however, offered no specific solutions of her own, saying only she is “hopeful’’ the issue will be reviewed at both the legislative and congressional level “and we can address what it is that we, as government, can do to make it safer.’’
Brewer also sidestepped the question of whether the National Rifle Association, which has taken the stand that the answer to gun violence is to let more people carry their weapons into more places, is out of step with the views of most Arizonans -- or even with her own position.
“You probably would be better to talk to the NRA in regards to that issue,’’ she said.
Nor was she willing to criticize that organization or suggest, as did Giffords and husband Mark Kelly in a op-ed column Tuesday, that the NRA exerts too much influence.
In forming Americans for Responsible Solutions, the pair said “special interests’’ that purport to represent gun owners are “really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe’’ and “have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission.’’
“Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction,’’ the pair wrote.
But Brewer, who got an A-plus rating from the NRA when she ran in 2010, said she doesn’t see it that way.
“I think that the NRA represents a huge number of people that believe in the Second Amendment,’’ she said.
Much of what can be done about the sale of guns is controlled at the federal level.
For example, federal laws which require a background check on gun purchasers do not apply to what are considered person-to-person sales. And that has been interpreted to include those who buy or sell weapons at commercial gun shows, even in large quantities.
But there are ways for some local regulation.
For example, in 1999, after a triple murder at a Tucson pizza shop, city officials made doing background checks on buyers a condition of conducting those shows in the city-owned convention center. But lawmakers in 2002 approved a measure which bars cities from imposing such restrictions.
Then-Gov. Jane Hull allowed the bill to become law without her signature. On Tuesday, Brewer was noncommittal about how she feels about giving that right to demand background checks back to cities.
“Moving forward in this session, I know that’s something that’s going to be debated and deliberated,’’ she said. “It’s something that I will give some thought to.’’
But Brewer had a chance to consider the issue following the 2011 incident in Tucson.
Weeks after that shooting, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg released videos take by undercover agents at a Phoenix gun show just 15 days after that incident. Arizona private investigators hired by New York City were able to buy weapons not only without a background check but, at least twice, did so after admitting to sellers they probably would not pass a check.
Brewer, asked about Bloomberg’s action, defended the 2002 law forbidding cities from requiring background checks. “We believe our laws are fair and just in the state of Arizona,” the governor said at the time.
The governor is also on record as opposing any law which would limit the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Max in Scottsdale posted at 10:40 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Did you know that 85% of the children killed by a guns IN THE whole WORLD happen in the United States of America? What is wrong with us?
Slabside posted at 10:43 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Thank you Jan.
mso88 posted at 11:33 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
The "journalist" repeatedly tried to turn the article into an anti-Jan Brewer smear. It didn't work.
az2008 posted at 1:02 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Max, it's impossible to make the kind of comparison you're making. Such data are woefully lacking from countries such as Russia, El Salvador (where firearm-related death exceeds the US).
Likewise, it's pointless to compare firearm related deaths without the context of non-firearm related deaths. I.e., advocates of firearm ownership say that it is widespread firearm ownership which prevents the kind of violence (including genocide) we see in other countries.
I'm not saying we can't improve. Personally, I'd like to see mandatory training (safe handling, legal theory of using lethal force for self defense) and licensing. I'd also like all firearm purchases to go through a licensed dealer (as they are required to when sales are interstate). OTOH, I understand why gun advocates oppose such things when a newspaper in New York published ownership details. It lends support for keeping ownership private, and maintaining avenues of private transactions.
dhwilson58 posted at 4:00 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Thank you Governor Brewer, You are the best thing that's happened to Arizona. It's a breath of fresh air to hear a political party make an intelligent statement for a change. I have been around firearms since I was very young, I raised 3 sons around firearms without one single incident or accident. How? By taking the curiosity away and teaching respect and responsibility. I do believe something needs to be done to protect our schools and the residents of Arizona in general but not by taking firearms away from law abiding citizens, that in itself is purely ignorant and to think that taking away high cap mags is the answer, just how ignorant does one need to be to think that is the answer. We have had security guards in schools for years, arming them isn't a bad idea. I am an a armed security officer and I don't think most people even know what kind of, how much training and continued training an armed guard or officer even goes through to get his or her certifications. The only issue I have with that is uniformed or plain cloths? and I'm leaning on plain cloths to keep the military syndrome down. It just a thought and a much better thought than taking away firearms thinking that it will stop mass shootings. Thank you for all your efforts in protecting Arizona.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:25 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
A match made in hell! Arizona and Jan Brewer.
COLT2 posted at 6:55 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
A free people have a right to possess the exact weapons being deployed against them. Disarm the the criminals and criminally insane, then we'll talk. Until this happens keep your mitts off my firearms.
Slabside posted at 8:55 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Well saidsaid COLT2
Mike McClellan posted at 9:23 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Fellas, you should parse her comments carefully. She didn't rule out arguing for ending the gun show loophole or arguing to limit magazine capacity.
I'd like to know if folks like Slab and COLT believe that private dealers are gun shows should be free of the background checks that licensed dealers must do at the same shows.
I'd also like to know if those folks believe that 100-round barrel magazines should be legal.
I have the feeling that once the most ferocious gun rights' advocates are persuaded that new regulations don not equal "gun confiscation," I'll bet we can find common ground.
We all agree, for example, that the mentally disturbed should not be able to purchase a gun legally. Yet the current gun show loophole obviously allows for that, and our current mental health/gun ownership rules do as well (as I understand it, only someone who's been institutionalized for a mental problem is "outlawed" from legal gun ownership -- we can all see the problem with that).
I bet we can eventually agree (knowing that they currently exist) that outlawing new production of large capacity magazines should be outlawed. Hunters I know think they aren't necessary for their purposes, so it's difficult to justify a magazine like the Aurora shooter used.
I bet we'd agree that with smaller capacity magazines, the crazies intent on massacres could have their carnage diminished.
az2008 posted at 9:34 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Colt, you'd legalize full-auto weapons? Any diameter bore? Land mines? Aircraft with chain-fed weapon? missiles? Remote-controlled drones with said weaponry?
The problem with your reasoning is that people are never free of their neighbors. Rights may be God given, but they depend upon respect and protection by a group. Your neighbors don't resonate with Red Dawn uprisings. Self defense against crime may have popular support.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 9:34 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
(continued...)
The right to resist government was never intended to be individual. It was supposed to be exercised collectively through the state militia -- which never existed to the extent envisioned by Civic Republicanism. It hasn't existed (much) for 100 years. If you want to start a movement to reinstitute the militia with a modern purpose, I would support that. But, arguing that we have a right to political violence outside the political office which gives it legitimacy is like arguing that you hold the veto power of the jury without being a member of a jury.
Will_Travel posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Mike McClellan,
Can you explain exactly what gun show loophole is? What is the difference between a private dealer and a licensed dealer? How do you or I, as private dealers, conduct a background check? How does the elimination of the “gun show loophole” prevent the mentally disturbed from being able to purchase a gun? Are there any firearms owners that aren’t hunters? Should gun laws require justification for high capacity magazines just like other laws that require justification for purchasing a fast car or a big house?
I look forward to learning the answers to these questions.
az2008 posted at 12:44 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Will, I think you're being disingenuous. Closing the gun-show loophole would be as simple as requiring all private sales at a gun show to go through a FFL dealer at the gun show. If this was required, FFL dealers would offer it as a service, for a slight commission. It wouldn't be any more of an inconvenience than purchasing at a gun store.
Following Mike's reasoning, if you're not willing to repeal instant background checks, then why are you willing to allow any guns to be sold without a background check? I.e., if background checks are useful to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining guns, with minimal inconvenience to the legitimate purchasers, what's wrong with requiring all sales (private, person-to-person) from going through an FFL?
I don't blame gun rights advocates for being reflexively opposed to any controls. There are a lot of pro-controllers who see no legitimate reason to own firearms. Any control is a step toward a total ban. But, I don't believe they're the majority. Many, like Mike, think controls can be improved without impeding the right to own firearms. (For example, did you notice Gabriel Giffords started her own pro-control movement? It appears she didn't join with existing groups like HCI because, unlike those legacy groups, which in the '80s and '90s set the movement back *decades*, she like most Americans value the right to arms. She, unlike rabid rights activists, doesn't believe it's an either/or proposition.).
Mike McClellan posted at 1:18 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Will, gun show loophole: "There are approximately 5,000 gun shows every year across the United States and 40% of sales at these shows are by unlicensed sellers who are not required to perform background checks. The ATF says that gunshows are the second leading source of crime guns. Although 17 states have taken action to partially or completely close this loophole, 33 states have not."
Any firearm owner who aren't hunters? I can't speak to all, but I do know that many in the military, at least in my experience, had firearms but did not hunt. For example, my dad was a pilot who was required to carry a sidearm, just as his fellow pilots were. Yet none of them were hunters.
Plenty of people own weapons for security but don't hunt with them.
Poor analogy - when did was a "big house" used as a weapon? And name a time when a "fast car" massacred 20 kids?
Baby posted at 1:37 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Thank you Governor Brewer!
The Senators and Congressmen has just recently sworn an oath on the Bible to. ... Protect and Defend the USA Constitution.
Governor Cuomo of NY wants a ban on assault rifles, but wants a woman's equality act in NY! In my personal opinion, it is like saying it is okay to kill potential USA citizens via abortion because "it's her body her choice", and it is okay to not defend the USA Constitution. It is in my opinion due to a gun for murder after you are born into the USA, especially a child, but when a baby is in the womb being ripped out by another tool it is not murder. Only when you see the human being does it become murder, outside the womb? Isn't murder murder?
Baby posted at 2:25 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
I have been thinking about Gov. Cuomo NY comments today. Wondering, did he watch the Speaker of the House and the mock oath photos. Noting that many woman was placed between The Speaker and the Congressmen with the woman holding the Bible and the Speaker of the House and the Congressmen placing their hand on the Bible. I have referred to our land as She.
Then, watching Gov. Cuomo today, the woman's equality act with him saying "her body her choice" then right after that talking about the ban for assault rifles. Our Country, HER we Defend and Protect. We do not want to destroy our country, our citizens at any age including those in the womb. There are too many medical advances, technology for the barbaric abortion.
Thank you for your patience while me, Baby, learning, processing.
Will_Travel posted at 2:45 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Az2008 and Mike,
What is disingenuous is the term “gun show loophole”. I’m trying to point out that there is no loophole; that the exact same laws apply at gun shows that apply outside of gun shows. I don’t disagree that having private sales at a gun show to go through a FFL dealer may be a solution to the lack of background checks but referring to it as a “loophole” suggests that private gun sales are somehow tainted.
az2008 posted at 5:40 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Will, IMO what constitutes a loophole is that it's event for the purpose of bringing together buyers and sellers, giving it a commercial tone. Some sellers are repeat participants -- so active as "traders" that it's questionable that they're merely private sellers.
That's the problem with the current situation. There is no visibility into who is selling so frequently that they're acting as an unlicensed dealer. Or, who's buying so frequently that they're likely conducting straw purchases on behalf of others.
I'm glad we agree to some extent about the desirability of solving this. I also share advocates' concern about privacy -- especially in the wake of the New York newspaper publishing gun ownership records. Proponents of control should join gun owners condemning the fringe elements of the gun control movement.
As an aside, I don't think it's constructive to become rhetorical about semantics. Sure, the "loophole" exists beyond gun shows. But, it's not as easy for buyers and sellers to find each other as an event. That's what makes it look more loophole'ish. You know what people are referring to. You could just acknowledge it without playing dumb.
Will_Travel posted at 10:05 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Not so much playing dumb but trying to open the topic up for conversation and hopefully dispel some of the myth.
If you were to ask "10 people on the street" and I'll wager one half of them believe that the "loophole" allows licensed dealers to transact without a background check.
A friend of mine ask once if I was aware of "cop-killer bullets". I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Those that have no interest in the subject and are unknowledgeable listen to everything they hear and believe it as though it is gospel.
Intelligent conversation and discussion is the only way we'll ever solve the issue.
az2008 posted at 1:40 am on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Will wrote: "half of them believe that the "loophole" allows licensed dealers to transact without a background check."
The problem is that you've already demonstrated a tactic of talking past the other person using rhetoric (when you know what the other person is talking about).
You may hear those people saying that, just so you can ask a dozen rhetorical questions to prove they don't know what they're talking about. What I hear is that an FFL dealer couldn't hold a "swap meet" at her gun store, and "sell guns to my customers, on my property, without all the record keeping... because it's a (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) private sale." That would never fly -- yet it effectively describes what happens at gun shows. Therefore, as a matter of perspective, it sounds a great deal like licensed dealers transacting without record keeping.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 1:40 am on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
(continued...)
This was made somewhat worse by the 1986 FOPA allowing FFL dealers to sell at gun shows. FFL presence creates a blurred line, as if buyers come for the more legitimate retail presence of real dealers, and encounter the swap meet sellers who are there on a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" basis.