Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« ATFE abuse hearings | Main | He must have really POed someone.... »

Strange shooting range bill in AZ

Posted by David Hardy · 29 March 2006 03:15 PM

AZ state rep Pamela Gorman has introduced a "strike everything" amendment to an unrelated bill (a strike everything strikes out all content of the bill and substitutes something else). The amendment would prohibit any subdivision of the state (i.e. counties, maybe cities) from operating a shooting range "under the jurisdiction" of state game and fish. It's also retroactive to Dec. 31 of last year.

Apart from the question of "why?" it's an illustration of why those who like laws or sausage should never watch either being made. What's a range "under the jurisdiction of" game and fish? Is it any range (since they can enforce game and fish laws on the land). Is it any range over which they have some special control? Any range for which they've disbursed a grant? And how and why do you make it retroactive -- how do you stop someone from managing what they've already managed?

2 Comments | Leave a comment

bud | March 30, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply

In other places, that particular legislative tactic is known as the "gut 'n stuff".

I know nothing about the local politics, but I think your first commentator has hit it; there is some provision someplace that prohibits local zoning agencies (read: developer's lackeys) from zoning a range out of existance if it's used by Fish and Game folks for training, etc. It's how we killed that same sort of attempted move on my local range, only using LEO training as the trump card.

email is human readable - aloud.

Rivrdog | March 31, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply

Why does "gut and stuff" even exist as a legislative device anymore? In this day and age of instant information, this trick, which originally was done in smoke-filled rooms behind doors closed to public and press, now has the transparency of cellophane, and simply reeks of corruption.

Don't these politicians ever care for how their constitutients see them?

Why doesn't the muckraking press ever publicize gut and stuff measures as below the belt?

They all are, because they all come at the end of legislative sessions where the opportunity to raises voices and oppose the legislation is crowded off the calendar by the rush to ajournment.

Leave a comment