Tucson Progressive

Pamela Powers Hannley, a progressive voice for Arizona

Brewer says ‘I’m the decider!’ And she’s ready to further diminish gun control laws (video)

[tnivideo caption=”How easy is it to buy a semi-automatic gun in Arizona? Scary easy.” credit=”gunshowsundercover”]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jZupCp0q1M[/tnivideo]

Dismissing the recent New York City sting operation and undercover purchases of high-powered firearms at a Phoenix gun show, Republican Governor Jan Brewer said she and the Arizona Legislature make the laws…period. She defended Arizona’s gun laws which allow gun show sales of firearms without a background check and forbid Arizona cities from having more stringent regulations than the state law.

Arizona’s lax gun laws came under fire after the January 8 Tucson massacre when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 11 others were shot and six innocent bystanders were murdered. The alleged shooter, who had hints of mental instability but no diagnosis, was able to easily purchase a semi-automatic handgun and extended magazine clips; the only purpose for such high-powered weaponry is to kill lots of people very quickly.

Adding to the outrage over the massacre, New York City conducted and video taped a sting operation at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix 15 days after the Tucson massacre. The videos above and below show undercover investigators easily purchasing semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines from unlicensed dealers without background checks, sales tax, or any ID beyond an Arizona drivers’ license.

Even though Arizona is one of only three states that currently allows carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, training, or a background check, Brewer said she is ready to sign legislation to make Arizona gun laws even more liberal, and Arizona Legislators are kicking around several ideas like allowing guns on college campuses, allowing guns in public buildings that don’t have metal detectors, and allowing people to “shoot varmints” at night.

Brewer defended Arizona laws with 2nd Amendment soundbites. From the Arizona Daily Star

“We’re strong people in Arizona,” she said. “We believe in the Constitution, and we certainly support the Second Amendment.”

I guess she doesn’t care if little Girl Scouts are afraid to sell cookies in front of shopping centers anymore. Or if economic development groups are afraid sane businessmen won’t relocate to Arizona because we’re crazy.

I think Arizona would be in much better shape if they controlled the sale of guns as tightly as they want to control the sale of medical marijuana. Would-be medical marijuana patients are required to be under a doctor’s care. What would have happened to Jared Loughner if he had had appropriate mental health care?

[tnivideo caption=”AZ Gun Show: A Glock. Three High Cap Mags. No Background Check.” credit=”gunshowsundercover”]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2u7l8rKrQ[/tnivideo]

44 comments on “Brewer says ‘I’m the decider!’ And she’s ready to further diminish gun control laws (video)

  1. leftfield
    February 1, 2011

    “I’m the decider”.  You know, I really miss these classic Bush moments.  Obama is just near as much fun.

    Interesting point about the government’s concern that we might kill ourselves smoking pot, while at the same time advocating that we are all safer the more guns that are around.   Of course, it has nothing at all to do with logic or the actual likelihood of harm, but everything to do with the American ethic of individualism and the puritan heritage of shunning anything that might be construed as hedonistic.  Maybe if all the victims of illness that are helped by smoking marijuana were to sign a pledge not to enjoy themselves while smoking their marijuana and to wear a hair shirt at all times?   

    • Pamela Powers
      February 1, 2011

      Yup– Arizona gun laws (you can hardly call them “gun control laws”) have nothing to do with logic or public safety. Nanny state + police state = Arizona.

      • Hank
        February 2, 2011

        Please read the Constitution and Bill of Rights ASAP, then please repost

      • Pamela
        February 2, 2011

        OK- I can be a strict Constitutionalist on the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution says citizens (plural) are allowed to keep and bear arms (plural). When the Constitution was written, arms included muskets, right? Other personal weapons would have included knives, swords, and bows.
         
        The Constitution DOES NOT say you have the right to own grenades, bazookas, automatic or semi-automatic weapons with any type of clips large or small or any other weapon invented after it was written. It also does not specifically say that one person can own more than one weapon.  And it definitely does not say you have the right to be armed to the teeth with weapons that allow you to blast as many of your fellow citizens as quickly as possible.
         
        So, if you are a Constitutiuoalist, drop your Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, dig a pit toilet, shut off your utilities, and buy some candles, firewood, and one musket and a knife.

      • JoeS
        February 2, 2011

        Ahh yes,  that canard….

        Well then the 1st amendment does not apply to TV,  internet,  typewriters,  ball point pens,  automated printing presses etc…..

        But be advised,  CANNON were in PRIVATE hands at the time of the drafting of the BOR and still in private hands long after. 

        Cannon being the WMD of the time I don’t think you want to go there…. 8^)

      • Jim In Houston
        February 2, 2011

        Read Heller…here’s the link for your convenience:
        http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
        Here’s what SCOTUS says about your silly argument, on page 8:
        “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
         

      • Watchdog
        February 2, 2011

        Fortunately our founding fathers were brilliant and knew that as time went on… guns would likely be improved, which I’m sure is why they chose to call them arms rather than specifically identifying each and every type of gun or guns that a citizen had a right to have and carry. It is also fitting that they chose to add the words “Shall not be infringed”. As far as them not specifically saying that one person has a right to own more than one weapon… they actually did… they added the “S” to the end of ARM… obviously meaning more than one.
        Personally I wish that all the gun haters like yourself, would carry around a sign as well as post one in their yard and on each of their vehicles.. stating that you don’t like guns and you do not wish for anyone to use a gun to protect you should your life be threatened by a criminal. I would sure rather save my bullets than waste them saving your life. Unfortunately y’all refuse to do that, so I guess I will just have to live with it when and if the time ever comes that I have to use deadly force to save your life.
        I have been at the wrong end of a gun while it was being held by a criminal and I was hit by the bullet that came out of the barrel when he decided to rob me and decided that he would just kill me while he was at it even though I cooperated. Luckily for me he was a bad shot  and I survived. Luckily for him I hadn’t started carrying a gun to defend myself at that time. The next person will not be so lucky.
        Good Day

      • Pamela
        February 2, 2011

        I am not a gun-hater, but I see NO POINT in allowing untrained citizens to own weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible and allowing them to carry said dangerous weapons anywhere in a concealed manner.
         
        No, it absolutely does not make the rest of us feel safer that you all are armed.
         
        The #1 biggest risk factor for being shot by a gun is owning a gun.

      • Jim in Houston
        February 4, 2011

        “The #1 biggest risk factor for being shot by a gun is owning a gun.”
         
        Sorry, Pamela…false statistic from debunked Kellerman studies.
        “I am not a gun-hater, but I see NO POINT in allowing untrained citizens to own weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible and allowing them to carry said dangerous weapons anywhere in a concealed manner.”
         
        Given that the stats PROVE that concealed carriers are far more lawful than the general public (and likely the police as well), your fears are irrational. You should bear in mind that many of us are FAR better trained than the police and that some of us are those who train the police themselves.

      • JoeS
        February 4, 2011

        “I am not a gun-hater, but….”

        Sorry,  when I read that I might as well be reading….

        “I have black friends, but….”
        “I have gay friends,  but…”
        “I have democrat friends,  but…”

        Anything before the “but” is well…..a “questionable” statement…

      • JoeS
        February 4, 2011

        Here Pamela,  I found this on another forum and it makes some good points….   8^)

        “He’s using Empathy:
        Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.

        Also called “forced teaming” , “An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a ‘gun person’, and decries the problems that ‘we’ face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, “I’m not a racist, I have lots of black friends..”

      • JoeS
        February 4, 2011

        “No, it absolutely does not make the rest of us feel safer that you all are armed.”

        Irrational fear of inanimate objects is something that should be discussed with medical professionals.

      • Watchdog
        February 5, 2011

        “I am not a gun-hater, but I see NO POINT in allowing untrained citizens to own weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible and allowing them to carry said dangerous weapons anywhere in a concealed manner.”
        Fortunately our rights to do so… do not hinge on whether or not YOU see a point in our decision to exercise them!  I suppose you could move to an open carry state, then you will at least have an idea of some of the people around you that are carrying.
         
        “No, it absolutely does not make the rest of us feel safer that you all are armed.”
        I for one really could care less whether you feel safer or not. I am not armed to make you feel safer. I am armed first and foremost for my safety and my family’s safety, and if I happen to be in the area where some other individual’s life is being threatened and I can stop the threat, I will by any means necessary including deadly force if necessary.
        “The #1 biggest risk factor for being shot by a gun is owning a gun.”
        Hmmm thats funny! I don’t know where you got your faulty factors, because I was shot before I ever owned a gun. I have now been carrying guns for many years since then and I haven’t been shot again. Furthermore if I had been carrying a gun the night that I got shot, I am convinced that I wouldn’t have gotten shot.. because I know I had several opportunities where I certainly could have shot that guy first. I know I could have and would have, and that was before I even had any gun training.
        You might as well get used to people carrying concealed guns nearly everywhere you go because thousands of people everyday are becoming licensed to carry concealed, some states have eliminated the need for a license, and then there are all the people who do it without a license including most criminals. Making new laws to limit owning or carrying guns is a waste of time because all it does is take guns out of the hands of honest upstanding people who follow the law. No law on the books now or in the future takes a single gun out of the hands of criminals because they don’t follow laws. This is why gun free killing zones such as schools and parks and such are so attractive to criminals, they can be reasonably sure that they will likely be the only ones with guns there.

  2. Desert Rose
    February 1, 2011

    How about if you show a video with Gov. Brewer stating her position?  This left leaning  paper needs to do the right thing.  It is wrong to sell a gun without a check to see if the person can legally own one period.    Quit the baloney, just report the news without your opinion.

    • Jim Bodkins
      February 1, 2011

      This is a blog – this isnt a paper. You should be over at azstarnet.

      • JoeS
        February 1, 2011

        Facts not required or even encouraged with “blogs”?

    • Pamela Powers
      February 1, 2011

      Brewer’s opinion (from the Star) is linked to the story.
       
      It is wrong to sell a gun without a check to see if the person can legally own one period.
      I agree with you, but Arizona law allows people to purchase guns without a background check or training.

      • Joel
        February 1, 2011

        No, it’s not.

  3. a. murray
    February 1, 2011

    Someone might remind the good Mayor Bloomberg that using a surrogate to purchase a firearm under any circumstances violates federal law and makes him no better than the cartel criminals

  4. leftfield
    February 1, 2011

    On 3Son’s blog, I see pictures of Clarence Thomas and George Bush.  I come over to Tucson Progressive and whom do I see?  Jan Brewer and Gollum (aka Russell Pearce). 

    You really should warn people.  Some of us have children in the house. 

    • Joel
      February 1, 2011

      More hate and intolerance. I guess only one side has stop all the hate and intolerance…
      Hypocrite.

      • leftfield
        February 1, 2011

        Making fun and hate speech are two different things. 

  5. Luke Luciano
    February 1, 2011

    Love these Liberal articles that just pull stuff out of their butt.
    “Oh no, that kid drowned in a swimming pool, we need to ban swimming pools!!!”
     
    What would have happened if Jared Loughner got help? There was no help for him you dolt, he was INSANE.

    • Pamela Powers
      February 1, 2011

      You are parroting the story that FOX News and the NRA want you to believe: Loughner is a lone crazy person; there is nothing wrong with our gun laws.
       
      Loughner was never diagnosed with any mental illness– expect post-massacre by the media. Although everyone thought he was weird, and Pima College thought he was weird enough to kick him off campus, he was sane enough to buy a gun in Arizona. THAT combination of lax gun laws and an inadequate mental health system is insane.

      • Hank
        February 2, 2011

        He broke the when he lied about his drug use. He also had contact with police numeruse time due to death threats. Local LEO dropped the ball and never arrested this Idiot

      • JoeS
        February 2, 2011

        A system was in place to stop those that have issues  like Loughner,  the system FAILED.  

        PCC police and PCSO,  the very type of people that most look to for “protection” ,  failed to follow thru on their duty.

      • JoeS
        February 2, 2011

        A system was in place to stop those that have issues  like Loughner,  the system FAILED.  
        PCC police and PCSO,  the very type of people that most look to for “protection” ,  failed to follow thru on their duty.

      • trek
        February 2, 2011

        It’s simple, he bought a gun, he shot and killed. Would he have done the same without a gun?  So logic tells us the gun killed. Now the gun folks want to continue to be selfish and keep their right to buy guns, own guns and arm themselves against invisible enemies. “OMG the communists are coming, OMG the gangs are taking over America, OMG I need to shoot an armed robber. OMG the illegals are taking over America” None of the scenarios have played out nor will they ever. Instead of being fair and protecting the innocent from deadly weapons, the gun folks want to continue to stick to the principle of the of the law. It’s out dated, it’s useless and it’s time to be realistic and practical and mature. Grow up children, the game is deadly.

      • Shotgun
        February 3, 2011

        You seem to be all fired up because a gun was used.  Would you feel any better about it if this nut case decided to drive his car into the crowd at high speed…or worse even….use an explosive device?
        Get off it!  The weapon used, no matter how large the magazine capacity was makes no difference, none at all.  One of the highest body counts on record for a mass killing was due to a can of gasoline and a match. Would it had been any less of a crime had this guy done that?

      • JoeS
        February 4, 2011

        “Would you feel any better about it if this nut case decided to drive his car into the crowd at high speed…”

        The individual would likely be disinterested in an event like that,  you see,  the individual is “anti-gun”, not “pro-safety”

  6. tiponeill
    February 1, 2011

    >What would have happened if Jared Loughner got help? There was no help for him you dolt, he was INSANE.
    Ummm – medical science has progressed a lot since the 18th Century.

  7. tl671
    February 2, 2011

    “The videos above and below show undercover investigators easily purchasing semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines from unlicensed dealers without background checks, sales tax, or any ID beyond an Arizona drivers’ license.”
    I love how the citizen disarmament movement makes up terms to TRY to support their agenda. There is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer, in the real world we call them citizens. If you are in the business of selling guns you must have a Federal Firearms License (F.F.L.).  There is not now nor should there ever be any requirement that a citizen must do a background check in order to sell their own private property.  Should we require background checks by people selling their cars, furniture, or homes? Also if you are not an F.F.L. holder you have no access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

    • Pamela
      February 2, 2011

      Did you look at the videos? Two men who identify themselves as private sellers at the Gun Show sell the undercover buyers semi-automatic guns for $400-500 dollars each. First of all, these guys are at a large gun show. This is not your neighbor selling you a gun. These are guys with booths at a gun show, and they are selling multiple weapons worth hundreds of dollars. (My guess is they sell weapons at multiple gun shows, although that is conjecture.)
       
      In the state of Arizona, when you sell “tangible personal property” regularly, you are required to have a business license (state and city), collect sales tax, and pay that tax to the state. Period. Obviously, this is just another loophole for the gun lobby.

      • tl671
        February 2, 2011

        What is your point? Private citizens are not required to seek government approval to sell their personal, private property. The size of the gun show has no bearing on the fact that these are private citizens of The United States of America, where it is still legal to sell you own property. If they are traveling with the gun show and selling guns for a living without an F.F.L. they are breaking the law. However, I would bet that they show up when the show comes to their town to sell guns that they have collected over a number of years, which no matter how try to slice it is still legal in this country.

      • tl671
        February 2, 2011

        Besides The article used the term “unlicensed dealer”, not “private seller”. Their is no such thing as an “unlicensed dealer”, it is a term used by the citizen disarmament movement to vilify private citizens selling their personal property.

      • JoeS
        February 4, 2011

        “There is no such thing as an “unlicensed dealer”, it is a term used by the citizen disarmament movement to vilify private citizens selling their personal property.”

        Worth repeating

  8. DMonroe
    February 2, 2011

    I don’t understand why people in AZ think that anyone who calls for stricter gun laws is ANTI-gun. Why are gun laws a four letter word around here?? Please, someone give me a rational, logical argument AGAINST stricter gun laws. I’m not talking about banning guns, or limiting how many you own, but LAWS. Just like traffic laws we all follow. Background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on extended clips, that kind of thing. PLEASE. One argument that doesn’t include a rant about our second amendment rights and our founding fathers blah blah blah. I REAL, thoughtful argument supporting complete and utter deregulation of gun shows and totally lax gun control. Anyone??

    • Jim in Houston
      February 3, 2011

      “Please, someone give me a rational, logical argument AGAINST stricter gun laws…..Background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on extended clips, that kind of thing. PLEASE.”
       
      You want a rational argument? Simple…there is not a SHRED of reliable evidence that these measures, or any gun control measures, or any combination of gun control measures produce a decrease in crime. NONE. The Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Science both looked. NOTHING!
       
      Therefore, there is absolutely NO rational reason to further control guns. Given that citizens have a Constitutionally protected right to own arms, to suggest restrictions without ANY corresponding clear, demonstrable, and proven societal interest can only be seen as irrational.
       
      Does that help?

    • JoeS
      February 4, 2011

      “I don’t understand why people in AZ think that anyone who calls for stricter gun laws is ANTI-gun. Why are gun laws a four letter word around here?? ”

      Study the history of the anti-gun movement and you will have you answer..

      “I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
      — Pete Shields, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.

  9. tl671
    February 2, 2011

    That’s just it, there needs to be no argument beyond our Second Amendment rights / Founding fathers. They were very intelligent men who wrote the founding document of this country based not on current technology (which changes), but rather based on human nature (which does not change). They understood that if the government was allowed to disarm the populace, they could run roughshod over the citizenry unchecked.

  10. Shotgun
    February 3, 2011

    Hmmm…waiting periods.  Anyone remember the riots over in L.A. several years ago? Many people…who supported gun control…got a little uneasy about things and thought it might be a good idea to go buy a gun for protection.  Imagine their dismay when they were told, Yeah, you can buy any gun you like,but, you can’t take it home for 15 days after the purchase.  Waiting period ya know.   But, but…that will be too late they stammered. Well says the dealer…you wanted gun control and waiting periods…now you’ve got ’em.  So…be careful of what you wish for. You just might get it…and learn to regret it.

  11. kimberland
    February 6, 2011

    A license to carry a concealed weapon is nothing more than the government regulating how an armed person wears his clothes. In most states one can wear a holstered firearm in plain view without a license. But if that same person untucks his shirt or puts on a jacket he becomes a felon.

  12. leftfield
    February 6, 2011

    For me, the strongest argument against gun controls is the NRA and their acolytes.  I’m far more afraid of them than the random paranoid schizophrenic or the burglar.

  13. Pingback: White Panthers: The corporatists and cronies who run Arizona with Russell Pearce’s help - Tucson Progressive

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on February 1, 2011 by in Arizona, Arizona Legislature, gun control, Jan Brewer, taxes and tagged , , .

About

The Tucson Progressive: Pamela Powers Hannley

I stand on the side of Love. I believe in kindness to all creatures on Earth and the inherent self-worth of all individuals--not just people who agree with me or look like me.

Widespread economic and social injustice prompted me to become a candidate for the Arizona House, representing Legislative District 9 in the 2016 election. My platform focuses on economic reforms to grow Arizona's economy, establish a state-based public bank, fix our infrastructure, fully fund public education, growlocal small businesses and community banks, and put people back to work at good-paying jobs. I also stand for equal rights, choice, and paycheck fairness for women. I am running as a progressive and running clean.

My day job is managing editor for the American Journal of Medicine, an academic medicine journal with a worldwide circulation. In addition, my husband and I co-direct Arizonans for a New Economy, Arizona's public banking initiative. I am a member of the national board of the Public Banking Institute, and I am co-chair of the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus of the Arizona Democratic Party.

I am a published author, photographer, videographer, clay artist, mother, nana, and wife. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism from Ohio State University and a masters in public health from the University of Arizona. I grew up in Amherst, Ohio, but I have lived in Tucson, Arizona since 1981. I am a proud member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson and the Public Relations Society of America.

My Tucson Progressive blog and Facebook page feature large doses of liberal ideas, local, state, and national politics, and random bits of humor. I also blog at Blog for Arizona and the Huffington Post.

Follow Me on Twitter

Follow Tucson Progressive on WordPress.com

Follow Me on Instagram

There was an error retrieving images from Instagram. An attempt will be remade in a few minutes.

%d bloggers like this: