Is Arizona trying to outlaw some types of private self defense?
An Arizona lawmaker has introduced a bill to revise the state's statutes on organized crime and fraud by defining "domestic terrorism" in such a way that members of the Minuteman Project or other border-patrol groups could be prosecuted and forced to serve a minimum six-month jail term. . . . .
My question is whether this law is so broad that it would make it a crime to hire guards at you store. I haven't read the law, but at least what this article describes would include this also. Would a concealed handgun permit holder be included? After all, would not a concealed handgun permit holder be said to be on guard for detecting illegal activity?
Thanks to James Marie for sending this link to me.
Labels: GunControl
posted by John Lott at 6:32 PM
6 Comments:
I noticed the same story here Not Just Minutemen, Individuals, too.
Thanks for covering this story.
This is obviously from some goofy Arizona politician that does not favor Immigration law enforcement. Such a law can be passed in Arizona under the state Constitution:
Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 26. Bearing Arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
This allows the state and cities to ban armed security guard agencies. No such law has ever been enacted in Arizona. It’s a screwy passage was voted into the Constitution in 1910.
Thanks, uscitizen and Crimefile. Crimefile, I agree with you that the Arizona constitution seems clear enough, but unfortunately too many courts go by what they think that the policy position should be and not by the law.
As I read the text of the bill to my wife, the first words out of her mouth were "neighborhood watch." I went back to the beginning and re-read it in that light. My 4-cell Maglite(r) is "other weapon" if they want to define it as such, so this does cover NW.
Peter.
Thanks, Peter. Laws are unfortunately too often quite vague. Just look at RICO. The original congressional staffer who wrote it up knew that it could be applied to more than just the MOB when he wrote it up. Who could be against tough rules to go after the Mob? The problem is it is impossible to come up with a definition for the Mob that won't include companies or other entities that are also breaking multiple laws. It becomes trivially easy to get anyone on breaking multiple laws.
Back in the 60's, it took patrols by armed black citizens to keep racist bombers and lynch mobs out of some black neighborhoods. White law enforcement officials simply refused to do their jobs so it was up to the private patrols to protect themselves and their neighbors. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema needs reminding that sometimes the 'State' doesn't do what it's supposed to and when that happens citizens have the right to take their own action.
Post a Comment
<< Home