Terry Goddard in 1994: “I would have vetoed the concealed weapons bill signed into law by Symington.” –The Arizona Daily Star, 8/22/94
Terry Goddard in 2009: “The current [concealed weapons] law in Arizona is not broken. It has worked exceptionally well.”–The Arizona Republic, 6/19/09
It’s amazing what Terry Goddard gets away with. Goddard has a long history of anti-Second Amendment activism. In 1994 he opposed the original bill that allowed concealed carry in Arizona for the first time. (Aug. 22, 1994 article from the Arizona Daily Star). The Star article does not say exactly what the grounds for his opposition were, but obviously he felt the bottom line is that law abiding citizens cannot be trusted with gun rights and the law would lead to more violence.
Fast forward to 2009. Senate Bill 1270 is pending, and it would loosen the current concealed carry law, the one Goddard opposed 15 years ago. So who is leading the charge this time in opposition to the Second Amendment? It’s Goddard again, and he has the chutzpah to say that Senate Bill 1270 would effect “a very dangerous change to state law.” http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/06/19/20090619guns0619.html
But why should we listen to Goddard now, when he has been so spectularly wrong about gun rights in the past? And why is it that the Republic journalist failed to point out Goddard’s previous attacks on the concealed carry law he now says works “exceptionally well,” a fact that completely discredits him on this issue? I guess I just answered my own question.
Anti-gun rights activists like Goddard always oppose any loosening of gun laws, and they always argue that gun rights are strong enough as they are and any new rights will lead to more violence. But had we listened to Goddard and his gun grabbing pals in 1994, we never would have known the effect of the original law, which even Goddard now agrees works “exceptionally well,” as if he was with us all along. That’s one reason we shouldn’t listen to them now. Have you no shame, Mr. Goddard?
Goddard…wrong then, wrong now.