Comments from 2 Senators on the failure of SB 1425 veto override

[Joe West]

Hi Gang,

Here's some insight into the failure of SB1425 veto override.
Next election cycle, let's focus on supporting Republican candidates in districts where we can remove a Democrat.

Joe



From Senator Jim Waring:


Dear Mr. West,

We just tried to override the veto on 1425 (it had passed 25-3 the first
time through) and several Dems either left the floor or changed their
vote, and the override failed. It was more than a little hard for them
to explain, but that's what happened.

Best,

Jim

Jim Waring
State Senator
District 7



From Senator Jake Flake:

Mr. West:
Today we voted to override the governor's veto of SB1425 that would keep
government from confiscating firearms or weapons during a state of
emergency. To my recollection, this is the first time we have attempted
to override a Governor's veto since I have been in the Legislature. We
lost the veto vote by one vote. When this same bill was voted on by the
Senate on third read, it passed easily by a vote of 25 ayes and 3 nays.
During the veto vote only one Democrate would cross the line and vote
with the Republicans.

I am proud to say that all of the Republicans support the second
amendment.

Thanks for your e-mail on this matter.

Sincerely,
Senator Jake Flake

[azdesertrhino]

Hi Gang,

Here's some insight into the failure of SB1425 veto override.
Next election cycle, let's focus on supporting Republican candidates in districts where we can remove a Democrat.



And at the top of that list is Janet N.

[xFallen]

Hi Gang,

Here's some insight into the failure of SB1425 veto override.
Next election cycle, let's focus on supporting Republican candidates in districts where we can remove a Democrat.

Joe



From Senator Jim Waring:


Dear Mr. West,

We just tried to override the veto on 1425 (it had passed 25-3 the first
time through) and several Dems either left the floor or changed their
vote, and the override failed. It was more than a little hard for them
to explain, but that's what happened.

Best,

Jim

Jim Waring
State Senator
District 7



From Senator Jake Flake:

Mr. West:
Today we voted to override the governor's veto of SB1425 that would keep
government from confiscating firearms or weapons during a state of
emergency. To my recollection, this is the first time we have attempted
to override a Governor's veto since I have been in the Legislature. We
lost the veto vote by one vote. When this same bill was voted on by the
Senate on third read, it passed easily by a vote of 25 ayes and 3 nays.
During the veto vote only one Democrate would cross the line and vote
with the Republicans.

I am proud to say that all of the Republicans support the second
amendment.

Thanks for your e-mail on this matter.

Sincerely,
Senator Jake Flake

I am not convinced this bill would withstand a challenge based on the 2nd amendment.


Barry

[Joe West]

It seems to me that once the government takes the stand that it is okay to confiscate weapons during an "emergency", all they need to do is declare an emergency and then take your weapons... for any reason that they deem "an emergency".

Much like the idiocy of George W's concept of "enemy combatants"... where US Citizens are stripped completely of their constitutional rights because someone in the government declares them an "enemy combatant"

When we give our government the right to strip us of our constitutional rights simply by calling a situation an "emergency" or by calling us "enemy combatants"... we are like sheep being led to slaughter. I simply do not understand why many Americans are willing to give up their freedoms for the perception of safety. In light of the latest Bush presidency, how is it that anyone can trust government to do anything correctly?

Joe

[xFallen]

It seems to me that once the government takes the stand that it is okay to confiscate weapons during an "emergency", all they need to do is declare an emergency and then take your weapons... for any reason that they deem "an emergency".

Much like the idiocy of George W's concept of "enemy combatants"... where US Citizens are stripped completely of their constitutional rights because someone in the government declares them an "enemy combatant"

When we give our government the right to strip us of our constitutional rights simply by calling a situation an "emergency" or by calling us "enemy combatants"... we are like sheep being led to slaughter. I simply do not understand why many Americans are willing to give up their freedoms for the perception of safety. In light of the latest Bush presidency, how is it that anyone can trust government to do anything correctly?

Joe


Most people do not understand freedom. I am convinced they really don't. In this world the burden of freedom and the comfort of security are often at odds and it seems people want both at the same time. I am not convinced you can have it that way. Everything of value has a price. When one values security over freedom, you lose freedom to some degree and the benefits and responsibility that accompanies it. Pretty sad we aren't willing to retain the freedom end of it here at home.


Barry

[TRobertsRN]

In the Novel Starship Troopers you can only vote if you have served in the Military.

I am not opposed to an ideal like this. At least the value and price of freedom would be understood by those that vote.

[azdesertrhino]

It makes me very uneasy to think that all it would take is a so called "state of emergency" for the government to come and attempt to take my guns. I'm afraid it would be a very ugly mess before it was over.

Below is a link to the letter Janet wrote when she vetoed the bill.

http://azleg.state.az.us/govlettr/47leg/2R/SB1425.pdf

I hate to sound dumb, but what the heck are "Novel Starship Troopers"?

[door3]

It makes me nervouse that Jake's name is at the bottom of that butchered email response to Joe. Use spell check Jake and don't make the repub's look like they all went to school with Dan Quayle

[Joe West]

If we are going to nit-pick...

the word is nervous. :D

I'm just extremely happy he responded. In this day and age of BS political correctness...any time one of our elected officials takes the time to respond to me... I'm damn happy.

Joe


It makes me nervouse that Jake's name is at the bottom of that butchered email response to Joe. Use spell check Jake and don't make the repub's look like they all went to school with Dan Quayle

[door3]

DOH!
Uhhh it's the European way of spelling it?

Joe- your right though- glad that they are listening to their constituents.
I don't have a weapon, but did serve in our Armed Forces proudly to defend the right to, in this case, bear arms.

[azdesertrhino]

I'm just extremely happy he responded. In this day and age of BS political correctness...any time one of our elected officials takes the time to respond to me... I'm damn happy.

Joe


With as many e-mails as I sent out, I received one response back. No, it was not from Janet! :eek: Most don't take the time to respond.

[Joe West]

Another comment from Senator Linda Gray:

On 4/30/06 8:25 AM, "Linda Gray" <lgray@azleg.gov> wrote:

> Dear Joe,
> In the Senate we had 25 of 30 who voted in support of SB1425 the first time.
> We made the motion to try to override the veto on Wednesday. It seems most
> Democrats are more willing to "PROTECT" their governor than to vote their
> conscience for their constituents. We needed 20 votes, we only had 19 and
> failed to override the veto.
>
> Election day is coming!
> Senator Linda Gray
>

[azdesertrhino]

Another comment from Senator Linda Gray:

On 4/30/06 8:25 AM, "Linda Gray" <lgray@azleg.gov> wrote:

> Dear Joe,
> In the Senate we had 25 of 30 who voted in support of SB1425 the first time.
> We made the motion to try to override the veto on Wednesday. It seems most
> Democrats are more willing to "PROTECT" their governor than to vote their
> conscience for their constituents. We needed 20 votes, we only had 19 and
> failed to override the veto.
>
> Election day is coming!
> Senator Linda Gray
>

Received the exact same e-mail today (except addressed to Jim) .

[SavageSun4x4]

I've got about 6 reply's back all saying more or less the same thing.

[SavageSun4x4]

When we give our government the right to strip us of our constitutional rights simply by calling a situation an "emergency" or by calling us "enemy combatants"...
Joe
Joe,
How up are you on martial law and FEMA??

[SVanHerpen]

At least the value and price of freedom would be understood by those that vote.

Time to re-read the book - Heinlein would be turning over in his grave if he read that line! Heinlein wrote about the concept you described - but not because of any "understanding" - only because those who served in the military were willing to place their lives in harm's way. Those not willing to do so, didn't get to vote.

Seems to me like he went one step further too - but you'll have to go back and re-read the book. Its in the bit with the old colonel in the classroom - that "required" course that you didn't have to pass...

Heinlein also advocated an armed society - "an armed society is a polite society"

[John_P]

What do you think about Janet's rationale in the second paragraph?

[Joe West]

Hi John... post the paragraph of which you speak...

Joe


What do you think about Janet's rationale in the second paragraph?

[John_P]

Hi John... post the paragraph of which you speak...

Joe

Can't post the paragraph...Only want to copy as an image. It pertains to ammunition movement from the path of a forest fire, etc...

[azdesertrhino]

I tried to post the letter but it is in a .pdf format. Tried saving it as a .jpg but won't post for me. ANYHOW, here is the link to the letter the Gov sent regarding the veto.


http://azleg.state.az.us/govlettr/47leg/2R/SB1425.pdf

[TRobertsRN]

[QUOTE=SVanHerpen]Time to re-read the book - Heinlein would be turning over in his grave if he read that line!

It has been a while since I read the book, about 1983 or so, but why would Heinlein be turning over in his grave?

[Antman]

After reading Janet's letter, me thinks once again she speaks with forked tongue. I know Janet well, believe me even before her run in with the Indian standoff at Ft Mcdowell. She is really a Billy-Bob Clinton Democrat or wolf in sheep's clothes, boil the frog bureacrat.
She always says she has nothing against the 2nd Amendment, but shows she is scared to death of citizens owning guns by her ACTIONS, not by what she says.
Is it anything new for the Democrats to vote party lines? :(

[jeepsonly]

Here is the text of Governor Napolitano's letter:

Dear President Bennett:

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and firmly believe in the rights of all Americans to bear arms. Nevertheless, today I vetoed Senate Bill 1425, which would have prohibited the imposition of my restrictions on the possession, transfer, sale, transport, carrying, storage, display or use of firealms or ammunition during a state of emergency declared by the governor.

Let me be clear: it is not my intent or goal ever to take away a law abiding person's firearm during a state of emergency. But the proposed addition of the new subsection (J) to A.R.S. $ 26-303 simply goes too far. It addresses a problem that does not and never has existed in Arizona. Indeed, the bill is predicated on an incident that occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Subsection (J) is much broader than the Katrina incident and would have serious consequences in Arizona. For example, it would prohibit the governor or the National Guard adjutant general from ordering the movement of a store of ammunition away fiom the path of a forest fire. As such, this bill as drafted is not in the best interest of Arizonans -- including lawful gun owners.

Yours very truly,

Janet Napolitano
Governor


JN: TNIjm
cc: The Honorable Jim Weiers
The Honorable Dean Martin

Any spelling errors may be due to the OCR process.

[DsrtJeeper]

Here is the text of Governor Napolitano's letter:

Dear President Bennett:

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and firmly believe in the rights of all Americans to bear arms. Nevertheless, today I vetoed Senate Bill 1425, which would have prohibited the imposition of my restrictions on the possession, transfer, sale, transport, carrying, storage, display or use of firealms or ammunition during a state of emergency declared by the governor.

Let me be clear: it is not my intent or goal ever to take away a law abiding person's firearm during a state of emergency. But the proposed addition of the new subsection (J) to A.R.S. $ 26-303 simply goes too far. It addresses a problem that does not and never has existed in Arizona. Indeed, the bill is predicated on an incident that occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Subsection (J) is much broader than the Katrina incident and would have serious consequences in Arizona. For example, it would prohibit the governor or the National Guard adjutant general from ordering the movement of a store of ammunition away fiom the path of a forest fire. As such, this bill as drafted is not in the best interest of Arizonans -- including lawful gun owners.

Yours very truly,

Janet Napolitano
Governor


JN: TNIjm
cc: The Honorable Jim Weiers
The Honorable Dean Martin

Any spelling errors may be due to the OCR process.

Could someone please spell out what all is involved in subsection J? All I remember hearing was that the government could take our guns in a state of emergency. Thus; I sent my e-mails. :confused:

[John_P]

After reading Janet's letter, me thinks once again she speaks with forked tongue. I know Janet well, believe me even before her run in with the Indian standoff at Ft Mcdowell. She is really a Billy-Bob Clinton Democrat or wolf in sheep's clothes, boil the frog bureacrat.
She always says she has nothing against the 2nd Amendment, but shows she is scared to death of citizens owning guns by her ACTIONS, not by what she says.
Is it anything new for the Democrats to vote party lines? :(

She approved the castle doctrine, no?

[Antman]

She approved the castle doctrine, no?

No comment for you John.......................:cool:

[Barker]

She approved the castle doctrine, no?

Yes she did, and imho, the Castle Doctrine bill was much more important than the Katrina one was.

We aren't going to get everything we want passed all the time... but we can keep plugging. I would like to see the Katrina bill restructured to avoid the governor's objections.

[John_P]

Yes she did, and imho, the Castle Doctrine bill was much more important than the Katrina one was.

We aren't going to get everything we want passed all the time... but we can keep plugging. I would like to see the Katrina bill restructured to avoid the governor's objections.

Honestly, it is no doubt a specificity issue more than anything.