Arizona Bill Bans De-facto Registration

[gvaldeg1]

Some Arizona Counties (particularly Mohave County) were recording information on guns and gun owners when the guns were temporarily stored as a condition for entering the premises. Arizona HB2629 was signed by Governor Brewer on May 11. This bill prevents this practice of de-facto registration. It also clearly eliminates the need to "retreat" when faced by a dangerous threat. Here's some info on the bill:

HB 2629 is a great example of how a few activists can make a big difference. It resulted from Mohave County being overly broad in interpreting the law requiring the storage of firearms when entering public (i.e., government) buildings. It seems a lot of extra record keeping was in place, in effect registering gun owners and their firearms. Fortunately the process was videotaped by concerned citizens and shared with AzCDL and the legislature.

A House bill (HB 2629) was reconstituted by a "strike everything" amendment to address the issue. The new law prohibits a political subdivision from requiring or maintaining any permanent or temporary records related to the storage of firearms that contain descriptions (serial numbers, etc.) of firearms or their owners. The text of HB 2629 can be found here:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2629s.pdf

Included in HB 2629 is language that clarifies that "A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force…if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act."

The effective date of HB 2629 is July 29, 2010.
__________________

 

[mappow]

Glad to see people taking action and following up. Great Story!

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

 

[Red Hat]

Way to go AZ! Add another state with a Castle Doctrine to the list...

 

[gvaldeg1]

Way to go AZ! Add another state with a Castle Doctrine to the list...

You may be missing the point. Arizona has had Castle Doctrine since 2006. However Castle Doctrine only applies to your dwelling or means of transportation. This is derived from the concept that "A man's home is his castle". This new law applies anyplace that you're legally allowed to be. If you're threatened with what you perceive as a a seriously dangerous threat ANYWHERE you have no requirement to retreat and can threaten or use lethal force. This basically extends your Castle Doctrine protection anywhere you are in Arizona.

 

[KimberPB]

You may be missing the point. Arizona has had Castle Doctrine since 2006. However Castle Doctrine only applies to your dwelling or means of transportation. This is derived from the concept that "A man's home is his castle". This new law applies anyplace that you're legally allowed to be. If you're threatened with what you perceive as a a seriously dangerous threat ANYWHERE you have no requirement to retreat and can threaten or use lethal force. This basically extends your Castle Doctrine protection anywhere you are in Arizona.

Sound like it's the same as Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. Glad to hear it passed.

 

[Red Hat]

You may be missing the point. Arizona has had Castle Doctrine since 2006. However Castle Doctrine only applies to your dwelling or means of transportation. This is derived from the concept that "A man's home is his castle". This new law applies anyplace that you're legally allowed to be. If you're threatened with what you perceive as a a seriously dangerous threat ANYWHERE you have no requirement to retreat and can threaten or use lethal force. This basically extends your Castle Doctrine protection anywhere you are in Arizona.

So basically AZ didn't have a true Castle Doctrine until this was signed into law. Our CD does cover 'where your are legally allowed to be' like most other states CD.

 

[Once Bitten]

I'm beginning to really like our Governor!
Jan Brewer rocks!leasantry:

 

[Unfettered Might]

So basically AZ didn't have a true Castle Doctrine until this was signed into law. Our CD does cover 'where your are legally allowed to be' like most other states CD.

No, it had Castle Doctrine. It come's from the concept that your home is your castle and you have the right to defend it. It extends to vehicles and other buildings on your property, if your in them at the time, depending on your state.

This means that someone doesn't have to retreat ANYWHERE they have a right to be and are not committing a crime, if faced with deadly force.

Another important distinction between the two can be that, in public, the proof your deadly force was justified is on you. Castle Doctrine, usually, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, which is seldom taken on.

 

[gvaldeg1]

I'm going to make it easy on everyone and post the operative section of the Bill so that nobody even has to look in the Bill to read it. It says:

B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IF THE PERSON IS IN A PLACE WHERE THE
PERSON MAY LEGALLY BE AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I think that this is very simple and concise. If you think that this shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution; I don't think so but, you're entitled to your opinion. I have been pushing to get this signed. I also agree with "Kudos" to Gov. Jan Brewer.

 

[Unfettered Might]

I'm going to make it easy on everyone and post the operative section of the Bill so that nobody even has to look in the Bill to read it. It says:

B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IF THE PERSON IS IN A PLACE WHERE THE
PERSON MAY LEGALLY BE AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I think that this is very simple and concise. If you think that this shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution; I don't think so but, you're entitled to your opinion. I have been pushing to get this signed. I also agree with "Kudos" to Gov. Jan Brewer.

Well no where in that text does it determine either way. Reading just the law isn't enough, you have to study case law as well. Look up case law that involved self defense shootings and see how they played out. A lot of factors play into it, I know Kentucky law because it's where I live, I'm no expert on Arizona law.

 

[Scouse]

I'm going to make it easy on everyone and post the operative section of the Bill so that nobody even has to look in the Bill to read it. It says:

B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IF THE PERSON IS IN A PLACE WHERE THE
PERSON MAY LEGALLY BE AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I think that this is very simple and concise. If you think that this shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution; I don't think so but, you're entitled to your opinion. I have been pushing to get this signed. I also agree with "Kudos" to Gov. Jan Brewer.

I agree with you!

This sntence needs to be struck...AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT. This is wide open to interpretation, what came first, the chicken, or the egg kind of statement.

 

[wolfhunter]

I'm going to make it easy on everyone and post the operative section of the Bill so that nobody even has to look in the Bill to read it. It says:

B. A PERSON HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE THREATENING OR USING DEADLY
PHYSICAL FORCE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IF THE PERSON IS IN A PLACE WHERE THE
PERSON MAY LEGALLY BE AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

I think that this is very simple and concise. If you think that this shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution; I don't think so but, you're entitled to your opinion. I have been pushing to get this signed. I also agree with "Kudos" to Gov. Jan Brewer.

This doesn't go beyond Florida's Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law. In addition, Florida's law precludes any Civil suit against any person who defends themselves in a situation covered by CD/SYG.

 

[GOV5]

This doesn't go beyond Florida's Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law. In addition, Florida's law precludes any Civil suit against any person who defends themselves in a situation covered by CD/SYG.

S.C. is the same way as Florida. You can't be sued in a civil court either.

There are some here, it seems, that are confusing the "no retreat necessary" law and the Castle Doctrine. They are two entirely different concepts. The Castle Doctrine says that you can use deadly force in your car or home...period. It also encompasses the 'No retreat necessary" provision. However, outside of your house or car, there are some states they REQUIRE you to retreat, if at all possible. The obvious problem with this stance by the courts is that a decision on an incident is being made after the fact, in a safe haven of a courtroom, with no fear of loss of life or bodily injury, and all the time that is needed, to come up with the decision. On the street, you have only a few seconds to decide what to do, and how. It isn't a fair situation in which to put anybody. And the thought in the back of the mind of a costly court fight could make a person hesitate at the EXACT time they need to be pulling the weapon and firing.

 

[utimmer43]

One great law after another. I LOVE this woman. If she isn't re-elected by a landslide, I'll be quite surprised.

AZ is quickly moving to the top of my list of "sanctuary" states, should I find it necessary to get the hell out of dodge.

 

[wolfhunter]

I agree with you!

This sntence needs to be struck...AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT. This is wide open to interpretation, what came first, the chicken, or the egg kind of statement.

This phrasing is used because a person can legally be in convenience store, but if they are robbing it, the illegal act keeps the use of a weapon in the crime. Otherwise, some lawyer would try and argue to have the "armed" part of the "armed robbery" dismissed. :sarcastic: