young man in camo with slung airsoft rifle arrested

[azlobo73]

imported post

I updated my post a bit more to clarify a little. Yes if I interpret the law correctly, and I thing I am, then they are illegally prohibiting firearms as per state law. They *could* limit to CCW, but not prohibit them, and can only limit firearms using the legally prescribed wording in the statute (and certainly not by redefining both the meaning and the spelling of words associated with firearms, which is the entire point of the statute's preciseness, if I had to guess).

Their web site seems to indicate that they *can* prohibit guns *because* they're a city. In fact the exact opposite appears to be case if I'm understanding state law correctly. I'm no lawyer but it would seem to be in line with the concept of preemption.

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

With the original photo attached, as well as my previous (unanswered) email included, this just went off to the Scottsdale PD to the Sgt. Clark in the New Times article (who is listed on the Scottsdale PD website as the 'Public Information Supervisor.'

Good morning Mr. Clark,

I have been following the case of the young man who had been in some hot water regarding the airsoft rifle incident in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. In a recent article published by the New Times I noticed your name came up in a story about that incident and one line specifically caught my attention.

"Clark tells us that a sign in the park warns that Airsoft rifles are not permitted, though he says some folks debate the validity of that ordinance."

It would sound like you might be aware of the issues that I have outlined below in an email to the Preserve administration two months ago, but to which I have never received any response other than "You should hear back from us shortly" from Ruthie Carll, their Executive Director.

As you are surely aware, Arizona statute 13-3108 applies here yet is being ignored almost entirely by the preserve.

I have attached a photo of an example of the park signage, which matches the 'Rules' section of their website as well (http://www.mcdowellsonoran.org/rules_regs.html) both in violation of the law.

Having not received any response or resolution from the park itself I am seeking any information you might be able to provide regarding applicability of Arizona law to the park, what exception(s) they may think or know applies to them, and what the official Police response/take would be on this situation.

As I stated in my previous email to Ruthie Carll, I am a law-abiding citizen and I'm not exactly a fan of having to deal with those who are not, or those who think they can impose their political views upon the masses regardless of the law just to be able to go hiking on a nearby trail.

I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter and very much look forward to any light you can shed on the issue.

Best Regards,

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

azlobo73 wrote:

I updated my post a bit more to clarify a little. Yes if they are illegally prohibiting firearms as per state law. They *could* limit to CCW, but not prohibit them, and can only limit firearms using the legally prescribed wording in the statute (and certainly not by redefining both the meaning and the spelling of words associated with firearms, which is the entire point of the statute's preciseness, if I had to guess).

Their web site seems to indicate that they *can* prohibit guns *because* they're a city. In fact the exact opposite appears to be case if I'm understanding state law correctly. I'm no lawyer but it would seem to be in line with the concept of preemption.

I came to the same conclusions as you, so hopefully we're both dead-on in our interpretation.

One thing of note.. I haven't looked at the wording of it recently, but the way it all apeared the last time I read through it fully it sounds like they can indeed limit to CCW permit HOLDERS, but not necessarily limit one to that mode of carry. IE: Open carry all day long as long as you do have a valid/current CCW permit as well.

 

[azlobo73]

imported post

Heh, yeah that does indeed seem to be the case, although they (law enforcement) can still harass a OC'er to verify that they have a CCW permit, and possibly pull out the "disorderly" card if some frightened hiker(s) say they felt "threatened"...

Edited to add: But then they moved to AZ right so its time they realize they ain't in Cali or NYC anymore...

:banghead:

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

azlobo73 wrote:

Heh, yeah that does indeed seem to be the case, although they (law enforcement) can still harass a OC'er to verify that they have a CCW permit, and possibly pull out the "disorderly" card if some frightened hiker(s) say they felt "threatened"...

:banghead:

They can then start pulling lawyers out of their asses, cause that's where I'll be sending them

 

[azlobo73]

imported post

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

Just got a response from the Preserve folks:

"The staff person that I had originally contact about this was part of the early retirement package with the City. Here is the first response from the new leadership. If you don’t hear from me soon – please continue to contact me!"



The 'first response' she is referring to is this from Bill Murphy of the City of Scottsdale:

"I am still working on this information. I am not that clear on the ordinance and will ask for our legal group to comment. I want to make sure our language is the same as we have in parks."


Makes sense since when I sent my followup I did get a bounce from one of the addresses for Bob Cafarella.

 

[azlobo]

imported post

I look forward to hearing whether their legal folks consider Scottsdale within the bounds of Arizona statute 13-3108 and preemption. I can't imagine them trying to argue that the current signage is in any way kosher...

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

Well, at this point I am assuming that the signage has NOT changed. I'd bet large sums of money that I'm right, but I suppose it's possible that changes have happened since that photo on page 1 was taken.

Need to go on a scouting mission and get some new photos around the area...

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

Can't say I expected much different from the local PD for obvious reasons:

"Thank you for your concern on this matter. The police department will enforce the laws that pertain to the park and any given situation where such laws are broken. We are not involved in the review or crafting of laws, that would fall under the duties of the legislative branch of the entity that has the laws on their books.

Sgt. Mark Clark"

Nothing new from the Preserve folks since Friday yet.

 

[Overtaxed]

imported post

I was in Grand Central Station one evening, and caught the tail end of a conversation between a police officer and some kids dressed in camo with pretty realistic airsoft guns slung over their shoulders.
Nothing more severe than an admonition to keep their fingers off the triggers!

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

Still nothing back from the preserve since the 30th of October. Time for another followup. (The last one was never even responded to.)



Since then, however, I have visited two trailheads and found them to not even match each other. The Thompson Peak trailhead has NO wording to prohibit (or even mention) firearms. The 104th St./Bell trailhead is identical to the photo on page 1 of this thread. (May be one in the same, but the poster doesn't mention where the photo was taken preceisely.)

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

It looks like the preserve intends to ignore the issue. Even with the last response which included "If you don’t hear from me soon – please continue to contact me!", my last two messages have not seen any response.

"I just wanted to follow up to see if there have been any new developments in this area?" sent December 3rd, and "I just wanted to follow up to see if there have been any new developments on this topic?" on December 29th.

Damn shame.

 

[JesseL]

imported post

It sounds like a few people need to retain an attorney and go for a little OC hike to force the issue.

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

JesseL wrote:

It sounds like a few people need to retain an attorney and go for a little OC hike to force the issue.

I considered that on my last hike out there (Bell/Windgate loop). Keeping it concealed was less-than-comfy and simply tucking my shirt between the holster and my body would've made all the difference in the world. Alas, the place was PACKED and I don't really have the funds to deal with any legal 'issues'.

 

[carole19791]

imported post

I get the feeling that some who responded to this story think the charges will be dropped, and somehow this whole situation is humorous.
Others think that there should be no gun laws anywhere at anytime. (The Tombstone shootout comes to mind).

However, before you laugh it off, consider this. Some cops like to work from vague laws which allow them to just make up the law according to what suits them. In Globe, AZ I have seen it. Around here, getting stopped by the cops can mean a break, if he likes you, or trouble and false accusations if he (or his girl friend) does not like you. (Now the US Forest Service has taken to stopping people on state highways and searching them without cause).

Also, I know that the rights of the unpopular must be upheld for the benefit of all.
Yes, I own guns, and I will vote for Democrats and progressive ideas asI see fit;
In fact, our Arizona Constitution, which mandates gun rights was written by Progressives and people from the unions. When the big money insurance companies and others want to change our Constitution, most of us use our direct democracy rights to just say no. The unions are mostly gone, but our Constitution is still in effect.

Many people who expect the Republicans to protect their gun rights may be in for a nasty surprise if and when the Ruling Class decides it no longer needs to keep up the act of pretending to care about any part of the Bill of Rights. After all, how many good Christians thought that the likes of Larry Craig (and a long list of other politicans) were all about "family values"?

Simple answers, assumption,and the practice ofstereotyping people is a sure sign of a faulty education.--(regardless of where such education was alleged to have happened).

PS assuming that a Progressive cannot shoot is not smart either.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

carole19791 wrote:

Yes, I own guns, and I will vote for Democrats and progressive ideas asI see fit;
In fact, our Arizona Constitution, which mandates gun rights was written by Progressives and people from the unions. When the big money insurance companies and others want to change our Constitution, most of us use our direct democracy rights to just say no. The unions are mostly gone, but our Constitution is still in effect.

Many people who expect the Republicans to protect their gun rights may be in for a nasty surprise if and when the Ruling Class decides it no longer needs to keep up the act of pretending to care about any part of the Bill of Rights. After all, how many good Christians thought that the likes of Larry Craig (and a long list of other politicans) were all about "family values"?

PS assuming that a Progressive cannot shoot is not smart either.

Donkey, is that you?

 

[Thundar]

imported post

carole19791 wrote:

(Now the US Forest Service has taken to stopping people on state highways and searching them without cause).

Can you give us more information on this?

 

[TOF]

imported post

I have to call BS on the Forest Service searches without some form of validation.

 

[rmbrems]

imported post

YOud think the USFS would devote a lil more time to busting the marijuana "plantations" that they keep discovering in the backwoods rather than fussin with the law-abiding types... just my 2 cents