AZ: Jan Brewer vetos carry on college campus grounds

[Charles L. Cotton]

Gov. Brewer's veto letter is attached. Note the part about not defining "public-right-of-way" and letting the courts decide.

Chas.

To this layman, seems well written and not a "it's for the children" reaction at all. Also, sounds like she is open to campus carry with CHL (optional now in AZ).

What bothers me is that she would wait until the bill passed and then publicly rebuke the legislature for passing a poorly written bill. I find it hard to believe that she wasn't aware of the wording of the bill before it passed. If she had problems with it, she should have raised them within the context of the legislative process rather than insulting the legislature publicly.

According to the veto letter, the lack of a definition of public-right-of-way was pointed out while the bill was in the legislature. The letter also pointed out that one of the supporters said the courts would have to decide what constituted a public-right-of-way. Whether or not this came from the Governor herself is not stated, but if the letter is accurate, the issue was brought up before the bill passed.

I have no idea how many bills are filed each session in Arizona, but I feel certain no governor has the time to read every bill, so I wouldn't be surprised if she was not aware of the language until it hit her desk.

I have no idea whether the veto was well-founded, or just a pretext, since I don't know what went on or controlling case law in Arizona. All I am saying is that her veto letter sets out facts that, if accurate, at least show a rational basis for a veto other than being anti-gun or anti-campus-carry.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Leaving basic definitions open to court interpretation is a recipe for disaster.

THIS!

When a bill deliberately leaves definitions open to court interpretations, it is an abdication of legislative responsibility in my opinion, and the authors ought to be called out on it. My sense is that, with this particular bill, the authors and its supporters could say "see that? I'm very pro-gun" in a very pro-gun state, but without having to own the backblast when the bill's definitions are unfavorably decided by the courts. They can just blame it on the courts. In other words, maybe this bill only pretended to take a stand in expanding the RKBA, and Gov. Brewer called them out on it.

Now, let them go back and rewrite the bill so that the definitions are clearly defined and see if they can still get their legislative supermajority (I doubt it). But if they act like grownups and pull on their big-boy pants and take ownership for their bill and get it passed again, it sounds like Brewer would likely sign it into law. She is still the governor who signed Constitutional Carry into law. I like that, and I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt.

The reason I say that I doubt they could get a supermajority if the definitions were clear is that I'm willing to bet that a number of legislators who voted in favor of it are privately conflicted about guns on campus.....and this does not surprise me. My own personal bent is very much in favor of Campus Carry, and ultimately in favor of Constitutional Carry in all places. However, we've seen the political firestorm over Campus Carry here in Texas — which is generally a very pro-gun state. There are lots of people who support gun rights, but who are still uncomfortable with guns on campus. I don't believe that is a rational viewpoint, but that doesn't change the fact that an awful lot of generally pro RKBA people....even pro RKBA people who hold CHLs....are not comfortable with Campus Carry. I don't see that Arizonans would be much different in that regard.