- Image courtesy of shutterstock.com
The question is still out there: How many non-right-wing votes does it take for a Republican to qualify as a moderate? Or, to put it another way, how many right-wing votes does it take for a Republican to lose any semblance of “moderate” cred?
Take Rep. Ethan Orr, who wants to appear moderate enough to appeal to swing voters in LD-9 (which stretches from mid-Tucson through the Foothills to Avra Valley) so he can retain his seat in November. On the one hand, he voted with Brewer to support Medicaid expansion and has taken a few other votes that break with many of his Republican colleagues. On the other hand, his was the deciding vote that moved the voter suppression repeal bill out of the Judiciary Committee, a bill that short circuits a voter referendum which amassed 146,000 signatures to make it on the ballot. If the bill passes, it takes away voters’ right to weigh in on voter suppression. Later, the lege can thumb its nose at the citizenry and vote the suppression measures right back in bit by bit, making them referendum-proof.
Now Orr has earned a merit badge or two to bolster his 92% NRA approval rating.
Orr voted with his Republican colleagues to get HB2339 out of the Judiciary Committee. It would allow someone to carry a gun pretty much anywhere except in places with security personnel, metal detectors and safe storage for weapons. Because, according to the “guns anywhere, any time” crowd, we don’t have nearly enough guns in nearly enough places in Arizona.
Orr also voted for HB2338. This bill adds a new item to the list of actions classified as aggravated assault. If anyone other than a peace officer “attempts to exercise control over . . . a person’s firearm that is lawfully possessed by the person in accordance with federal and state law,” that will be considered aggravated assault.
I only bring an English teacher’s skills to my reading of legislation. I’m not a student of the law. But the new addition to the aggravated assault law seems pretty clear to this layman. In my reading, if someone like Jared Lee Loughner purchased a gun legally and brandished it in public, with menace and madness flashing in his eyes, no one other than a peace officer could touch him without ending up in court on an aggravated assault charge. Ethan Orr, whose district includes the Safeway where Loughner brandished and used his weapon January 8, 2011, voted for the measure.
This article appears in Feb 20-26, 2014.
I must have missed that part about who can take away a gun because what I read at the beginning was the list of injuries that would constitute aggravated assault and taking a weapon away in the manner you described was not listed. I suspect this bill is amending a previous bill where it has been noticed something is missing. I have to wonder if your tone is more about opposing Mr. Orr than actually pointing out a flaw in the proposed bill and by including the NRA in your article you might be maligning him in a way he doesn’t deserve.
I appreciate you bringing these two bills to greater public attention. The concealed carry law continues to undergo refinement which actually adds to the safety of the general public.
You missed the proposed amendment by Rep. Farnsworth that will be added in the COW
Page 2, line 25, after “firearm” insert “, with the intent to cause harm,”
It would now read:
(d) A person’s firearm with the intent to cause harm, that is lawfully possessed by the person in accordance with federal and state law. This subdivision does not apply to a peace officer who takes or attempts to exercise control over a person’s firearm while the officer is engaged in the execution of any official duties.
In the case you describe, would Loughner be in lawful possession of a firearm? No.
What this would hopefully prevent, or would hold the violator accountable for doing is if they pulled a persons firearm out of their holster while standing in the grocery store line and then using it to commit a criminal act.
Moreover, the individual trying to stop Lougner would not have the intent of causing Loughner harm but to apprehend him and secure his firearm.
Make sense?
I do believe that Mr. Safier has a hard on for Mr. Orr. It is much easier to attack someone if you can pigeonhole them as a liberal or conservative, which is what the paid hacks are paid to do.
A principled legislator is going to evaluate each piece of legislation as to it’s overall good or bad and vote accordingly, though sometimes one will have to hold his or her nose because of politics.
As for the two pieces of legislation the author references, the Second Amendment is not liberal, conservative or moderate. It is what it is.
On the alleged voter suppression Bill, the original was a piece of crap, with nuggets of gold buried in it. I also signed the petition to put it to a vote. However, I believe the referendum threat has served its purpose. It has caused the legislature to overturn their own bill, and address the individual pieces separately, which is what should have been done originally. Laws are better made by legislatures than by the masses.
As I have mentioned before in this esteemed publication, LD-9, with the exception of Al Melvin, does generally not tolerate for long, extremes of the left or right, and the voters tend to be smarter than the hacks who try and fool them with editorials.
Gotta love Arizona – they don’t have to allow gay people in, but they have to let their guns in 🙂 At least we can shoot back
Patrick O’Neill: That is not accurate, but it sounds slick. Any business in Arizona may prohibit an individual in possession of a firearm from entering. You see their signs occasionally.
There is no question this guy should be defeated in November.
The Second Amendment indeed is what it is, and that is overdue for repeal. Today’s date is 2/21/2014, not 1791. The amendment was timely in 1791, it’s nothing but a shield for weapon-worshipping people in 2014. And Al Melvin has never been elected in LD 9. He won in former LD 26 when his Saddlebrooke fans were in that district. Redistricting moved Saddlebrooke and Captain Al into a less competitive district where his views are not yet seen as based on ignorance and bias. As to Ethan Orr, he seems pretty much to epitomize the legislator who wants to follow his mind and heart but isn’t quite courageous enough to do so when his caucus demands obedience. We need far fewer of these than we have in legislative bodies at all levels, alas.
“What this would hopefully prevent, or would hold the violator accountable for doing is if they pulled a persons firearm out of their holster while standing in the grocery store line and then using it to commit a criminal act.”
Really does anyone else think that is about the most ignorant statement ever penned?
Folks, in case you haven’t noticed it is the first vote Representative Orr made the day the Legislature began. The vote for the Speaker of the House, with almost total and absolute control over the balance of what legislation has a chance of becoming law.
From that first vote flows the power. Change the leadership, change the direction and results of legislative actions.