Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/17/2004 6:44:05 PM EST
I live in Gilbert, and the local libraries post "No Weapons" at the entrance. As they are (I assume) a branch of city government, aren't these signs unenforceable due to the state pre-emption statute, same as city parks etc. ? Whats the story, mornin' glory ?
Link Posted: 8/17/2004 7:16:39 PM EST
Should have lockers available AFAIK...................

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Link Posted: 8/17/2004 7:25:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/17/2004 7:25:25 PM EST by tfod]
I believe it is a county library. There is often an armed officer in the library at the front.

If I am correct, the store it or let me carry it law only applies to CCW permits. I do not know if you have one or not.
Link Posted: 8/17/2004 7:56:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By tfod:
I believe it is a county library. There is often an armed officer in the library at the front.

If I am correct, the store it or let me carry it law only applies to CCW permits. I do not know if you have one or not.



I have never heard of any company or business offering to store your firearm here in AZ..I believe that went out when guys would stowe their hog legs with the bartender back when whisky was 5 cents a shot and you had to park your horse..

A library can post signs just like courtrooms, county jails, or police stations or any other government agency...And you are to obey those laws just like a private business...
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:41:24 AM EST
It is legal for them to disallow weapons in the library- technically, they do have to offer to check your gun.

My nearest library is the Red Mountain branch on Power Ave. They have two lockers available-- just ask the circulation desk for the firearms locker key and you're good to go.

Mike
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 6:16:12 AM EST
I have a CCW. I'm not so worried about storage... that why God put globeboxes in our cars . I just don't like being told to disarm by petty bureaucrats, and was hoping the State premption statute would invalidate this kind of ordinance in the same way as it invalidates "gun free parks" for example. After all, isn't the County library a public space just like a park ? I understand some Govt facilities (courthouses, State assembly etc.) are statutory "no weapons" buildings, but how can local officials add libraries etc. to this list simply by administrative fiat ?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:51:06 AM EST
As one of the folks involved in helping the original (clean) preemption law get put together before it got bastardized, and as one of the folks in Glendale who challenged that city's interpretation of 13-3102(A)(10), here's the deal.

Political subdivisions can not enact laws that are contrary to state law. Thus, they can prohibit you from carrying (either CCW or open...doesn't matter) by posting the notices. Here's where it gets fuzzy:


10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event;


Public establishment is now defined " "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state."

So....what does "place it in the customer of the operator of the establishment" mean?

Depends on the city. Since WHERE isn't defined, they look at "who". In Glendale, they were claimining the city was the operator and that they had designated GPD to take custody. They then started collecting weapons and making the carrier go down to GPD headquarters in downtown Glendale to retrieve them....even if you went to the N. Glendale Foothills library.

Of course, we were incensed. So we started a coordinated effort to check weapons...all over the city, various times and such. One guy, RickD of Black Truck of Truth fame, went to the airport to check a sheath knife...the officer had a fun time trying to write down a non-existent serial number.

Glendale eventually tired of us, so they aggreed to install lock boxes at city locations. Go to the Foothills library, walk in and ask for a key to the lock box, which is outside. You gotta fill a form out so they get the key back, but they give it back to you when you leave (sure..perhaps they make a copy...don't know). They don't leave the keys in the box for "walk up service", because an enterprising criminal will take keys, make copies, put keys back, then increase the size of their gun collection when someone uses the box.

In downtown Glendale, they make you walk over to the Teague library and put your gun there, even if you are going into city hall. Since it's in the same "area", the city believes this is OK. Tucson was doing the same thing as Glendale originally did, but their city attorney issued an opinion that the lock-boxes/checking place had to be in the same immediate area...IOW, no making folks going to the Civic Center travel downtown to check/retrieve their firearms.

City of Phoenix main library has a safe inside with the guard...walk in, give him your gun, read books.

Scottsdale won't check and doesn't believe they need to. Mesa provides lockers. Tempe...well, you can figure Tempe...I don't think they check and won't check. Gilbert? Don't know.

Our posistion in Glendale was that leaving the gun in the car was a theft-waiting to happen, and handling guns unnecessarily at any time was dumb...so just let us alone. Taking off/putting on at a lock box was an AD/ND waiting to happen. Of course, the city said no and installed lockboxes.

So, there is no law saying they have to provide lock-boxes...only that you must turn over custody of weapon to them if they request...and a sign is a request and is legal.

Hope this helps.

TimW
Phoenix,
Practical Tactical, LLC

Phoenix Area Field Rep
Brassroots, Inc.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:48:50 AM EST
OK, that makes it pretty clear... not the answer I wanted to hear, but not your fault of course. Thanks for the lengthy and informative answer, and for the time you took to write it.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 12:56:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 12:57:10 PM EST by tfod]

Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:


I have never heard of any company or business offering to store your firearm here in AZ..I believe that went out when guys would stowe their hog legs with the bartender back when whisky was 5 cents a shot and you had to park your horse..

A library can post signs just like courtrooms, county jails, or police stations or any other government agency...And you are to obey those laws just like a private business...



The Smittys in Chandler used to require that guns be checked at the front desk. Automobiles were quite common at that time. The rest I believe was answered quite well by TimW.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 1:19:48 PM EST
Maricopa County Superior Court will check weapons. I've had them even check and store my keys because I have a handcuff key on them. The Marshalls in District and BK court will even make you check your cell phone. No phones allowed in federal court buildings.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 4:47:13 PM EST
The Tempe Library has a NO Weapon's sign as well. Shit, I see more NO Weapons signs out here than back in MA. The great thing about carrying concealed is no one knows but you
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 7:46:25 PM EST
Oh yeah, been there, done that.

Tim has the story straight.

However, that doesn't mean that new-hires don't sometimes get a little confused as to the law. It takes vigilence, and sometimes the stalwart gunnie will be facing down three armed LEOs who swear up and down that they don't check no stinking guns, but we seem to have most of them in compliance with the law.

The last time I checked a gun was at the Phx Muni court last spring. I went in and let the morning rush crowd go through the security station and then I waited for the lines to thin out. I told them I had a firearm to check. Very professionally, they checked it.

I e-mailed two thank-yous to Mayor Phil Gordon, who is generally anti-gun but seems to pride himself on his well-trained gun-checking staff. He invited me to have lunch one day.

One day, indeed.

Rick
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:11:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 8:15:38 PM EST by StealthyBlagga]

Originally Posted By Redbone:
...Shit, I see more NO Weapons signs out here than back in MA...



No kidding... I guess that what we get when certain people amongst us keep shoving their "open carry rights" in the face of non-natives. Like I said on another thread, we should be fighting smarter, not harder.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 4:39:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By StealthyBlagga:

No kidding... I guess that what we get when certain people amongst us keep shoving their "open carry rights" in the face of non-natives. Like I said on another thread, we should be fighting smarter, not harder.



Are you serious, Clark? I rarely carry open anymore, but I don't get your arguement. Would you be in favor of elimination of open carry here in AZ?
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 4:41:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Redbone:
Shit, I see more NO Weapons signs out here than back in MA.



Maybe because gun ownership is so beaten down that they don't even assume a law abiding citizen would dare carry a weapon.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:19:43 AM EST
I think StealthyBlagga gets it.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:32:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By markm:
Would you be n favor of elimination of open carry here in AZ?



Not at all. Its just that there is a place and time for everything, and sometimes discretion and social etiquet should be considered. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean its a good idea to do it everywhere. Its like chewing with your mouth open... not illegal, but it grosses people out and makes folks think you are a weirdo. Its is a question of social graces.

Unfortunately, gun owners who are too "in your face" hurt our cause more than help it. IMHO.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 7:55:02 AM EST
OK. I hear what you're saying. I hadn't read your other comments on this.

It's kinka like the turn off you get when the Gays have to ram it in your face. It annoys you when you otherwise wouldn't be bothered by it.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:15:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By markm:

Originally Posted By Redbone:
Shit, I see more NO Weapons signs out here than back in MA.



Maybe because gun ownership is so beaten down that they don't even assume a law abiding citizen would dare carry a weapon.



Actually I think it's because most MA residents don't know there is a CCW permit for lawful citizens. Carrying in bars was also legal provided you weren't drinking. Here they don't want you to even carry into a goddamn Chili's!
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:20:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 8:20:29 AM EST by markm]
I say an old "COPS" episode in MA where the officer came across a young male with a CCW. He took his black talons away from him because he wasn't sure if they were legal or not.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:45:05 AM EST

He took his black talons away from him because he wasn't sure if they were legal or not.





Dude, illegal or not I have no doubt it violated an unwriten 'social etiquette".......did you not get the memo from the CCW snobs association?.............
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:11:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By StealthyBlagga:
Not at all. Its just that there is a place and time for everything, and sometimes discretion and social etiquet should be considered. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean its a good idea to do it everywhere. Its like not giving your seat up for a white person... not illegal, but it grosses people out and makes folks think you are an uppity negro. Its is a question of social graces.

Unfortunately, blacks who are too "in your face" hurt our cause more than help it. IMHO.



You know....less than 50 years ago, this would have been the thread we'd have been talking about....amazing what one group can accomplish when they refuse to compromise.

Hey, Biggame 223, what is it that compromise gets us?

TimW
Phoenix
Practical Tactical, LLC
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:15:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By markm:
It's kinka like the turn off you get when the Gays have to ram it in your face. It annoys you when you otherwise wouldn't be bothered by it.



"The Gays"...you make it sound like their own ethnic group...I wonder if they are related to the Goths or the Vandals?

So, if two gay men kiss in public...not make out...just kiss....is this "in your face?"

If a husband gives his wife a kiss in public....not make out...just a kiss, is this also not "in your face" heterosexuality?

Is it just me, or does anyone else see hypocrisy in statements like these?

MarkM, I am not trying to single you out, as you're not the only one who makes these statements...hell, I am guilty of it, too. But one must consider the underlying civil rights in the issue, IMO. If the 14th Amendment means anything, it's equal treatment, no?

But, as in Animal Farm, all animals are equal...just some are more equal than others.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:19:09 AM EST


Hey, Biggame 223, what is it that compromise gets us?








Will we never learn?
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:32:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimW:
So, if two gay men kiss in public...not make out...just kiss....is this "in your face?"



It's IN YOUR FACE, FLANDERS! WOOO HOOOOO!
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:42:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimW:
"Unfortunately, blacks who are too "in your face" hurt our cause more than help it."

You know....less than 50 years ago, this would have been the thread we'd have been talking about....amazing what one group can accomplish when they refuse to compromise.



Not a fair comparison. Suppose Rosa Parks had wanted to sit in the front of the omnibus in, say, 1855... do you think blacks would have gained emancipation 100 years earlier ? Or could it instead have led to a total ban on all blacks in public transport, forcing them to walk everywhere ? Who would that have hurt more ?

The point I am trying to make is that this is NOT a question of principals or rights (upon which I'm sure we would all agree) but a question of TACTICS. Politics is a tangled and complex business - just stumbling around and starting ad hoc "grassroots" campaigns to force the issue is clumsy and likely to end up hurting our cause more than gaining us any ground.

To paraphrase the lawyer in "A Few Good Men", its the difference between paper politics and real politics.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 10:04:48 AM EST
Wow. This threads taken a turn...

...Where's the popcorn?
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 10:19:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By StealthyBlagga:
Not a fair comparison. Suppose Rosa Parks had wanted to sit in the front of the omnibus in, say, 1855... do you think blacks would have gained emancipation 100 years earlier ? Or could it instead have led to a total ban on all blacks in public transport, forcing them to walk everywhere ? Who would that have hurt more ?



You make a good point, but I disagree with it not being a relevant example. In 1855, Rosa Parks would have been considered property and had no rights at all....there never have been any question as to if she were a "person" with "rights"....they didn't exist for African Americans at that time....that's why they were known as "slaves."

Also...I do not know if blacks were "banned" or not from public transport at that time, so I cannot begin to posit if such actions would have helped or impeded emancipation.

But let's say that they weren't banned. My guess is that them "uppity negroes" would have caused their masters all sorts of problems ("you better keep your niggers in line, John...they're causing all sorts of problems around town...hate to see you get in trouble for letting them run loose like that"), like when dog owners let their pets run loose. (NO, I am not calling blacks dogs, but I believe the sentiment at that time would be the same as the pet ownership issue is now).

So, since Rosa Parks DID have rights under the law when she took a stand (or, more accurately, refused to stand), the comparison isn't valid. I am certain at least some of her contemporaries viewed her tactics as a step backwards.

Open carry IS a right in Arizona. That we do not dispute. I do not view open carry as a step backwards....in fact, the CCW permitting system has done more to harm open carry than anything we've done, IMO.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 10:21:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 10:50:17 AM EST
Tim,

You can't argue that the right to open carry becomes a privilege when you step onto private property.

The same goes for the first amendment. There is not one business out there that is going to allow you to hold up signs saying what rotten bastards they are while on their property. The first amendment is a right that you can express from the public sidewalk but becomes a privilege when you step onto private property. Should we not do business with companies that won't let us protest on their property? They are denying us our civil rights.

Imagine the long list of companies that have no gun policies just because of open carry.

StealthyBlagga makes an excellent point. I would support open carry if I believed that everyone would use good judgment when they expressed this right. Unfortunately, some people believe they need to draw attention to themselves and push open carry on everyone everywhere. This will have the effect of causing us to lose a lot more gun rights than just open carry.

Just be cognizant that your actions while openly carrying may have far reaching consequences.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 11:35:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
Tim,

You can't argue that the right to open carry becomes a privilege when you step onto private property.

The same goes for the first amendment. There is not one business out there that is going to allow you to hold up signs saying what rotten bastards they are while on their property. The first amendment is a right that you can express from the public sidewalk but becomes a privilege when you step onto private property. Should we not do business with companies that won't let us protest on their property? They are denying us our civil rights.




I have not, nor will I ever, claim that doing such on private property is an inherent right. Neither has Sinistral. In fact, I don't think anyone in any of these threads has indicated this.

As for protesting businesses based on First Amendment violations, doing so would follow the same principal as that based on the carrying of firearms on their property. However, I believe an argument can be made that protesting a company on their property is different than carrying a firearm, since the EXPLICIT purpose of the protest is to publicly denigrate/affect the business in question, whereas wearing a firearm is not.

However, in either case I would not deny the right of a company to prohibit either action on property controlled by them
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 2:31:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/23/2004 2:32:08 PM EST by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 4:00:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By SinistralRifleman:
...

Gun owners are being forced into the closet and homosexuals are coming out....by the time I am an old man I think I know which will be socially accepted without a second thought and which will be considered a perversion. We will only have ourselves to blame for following "social decorum"




Unfortunately, this is so damn true.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 5:19:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 5:35:49 PM EST
Jiminy Cricket! That was an awesome post!
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:26:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
I think StealthyBlagga gets it.



What we get is that some of you folks will supplicate to the false God of compromise until such time as the noose is placed around your necks.

Please forgive those of us who find this particular brand of ideological pussyism to be repugnant.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 8:16:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 7:24:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Garryowen:
...



Damn that was good!
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 9:29:42 AM EST
As has also been said, the Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting.

Good work, GarryOwen!

Link Posted: 8/24/2004 10:12:44 AM EST
Unfortunately, we have these things called lawmakers. They do just what their name implies, they make more laws. They love it when sheeple call them scared asking for more laws, it gives them something to do and helps them get re-elected. Our forefathers set up a system of checks and balances to make sure these lawmakers don't get carried away. Again unfortunately, the judicial side of these checks and balances hasn't been doing their share of keeping these lawmakers inline. They are out of control.

Scare sheeple, get more laws.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 10:19:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/24/2004 10:22:09 AM EST by SinistralRifleman]
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:53:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 1:33:55 PM EST
To continue the beating

I'll have to check with my former City of Scottsdale librarian wife but I think there are two public library types in Maricopa County. There are city public libraries and county public libraries. I would expect the county libraries would have different policies than those of individual cities.
Top Top