Kudos to Kavanagh for Sponsoring H.B. 2474

A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity shall not prohibit a person who lawfully possesses a firearm from transporting or storing the firearm in a locked and privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles.

B.  A property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity or the agent or employee of a property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an act involving a firearm that is transported or stored pursuant to this section in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle that is parked in a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles.

Charlton Heston would be proud John.  H.B. 2474 is a fine piece of needed legislation.  Short, sweet and to the point.  Representative Kavanagh understands the difference between “responsible gun owners” and criminals.

The facts are, and studies confirm, that criminals intent on violence prefer unarmed victims.  Lets face it, 911 is nothing more than “government sponsored dial-a-prayer”.

How many times do individuals intent on committing gun violence give consideration to laws?  For example, have you noticed that its schools, churches, and places of employment that are often the target of deranged individuals?   Have you also noticed that those are usually places with many potential victims all with little to no means of self-defense?

Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute however has a slightly different take, “Arizona House Bill 2474 would protect the right to carry, transport and store weapons on private property–effectively trumping the owner’s property rights. Advocates of limited government should avoid creating a conflict between property rights and gun rights.

Nick raises an interesting point.  However, the proposed change to paragraph B;  Section 1 of Title 13, chapter 31, of the Arizona Revised Statutes clearly states, “… property owner, tenant, public or private employer or business entity is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an act involving a firearm that is transported or stored pursuant to this section in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle…”

That seems to address Mr. Dranias’s concerns regarding the rights of property owners.  What Mr. Dranias seems to be avoiding is the issue of when the employee parking lot is public property.  As I noted earlier, most incidents of gun mayhem occur in locations where potential victims are concentrated, unarmed, and the site is clearly a ‘gun free zone”.

Representative Kavanagh is to be lauded for this piece of legislative fortitude that in time will save lives.  Now lets see if others professing a love of the Second Amendment will follow suit (like Congressional candidate William Konopnicki for example).

P.S.  Governor Brewer:  We understand you stood up your friends at the NRA National Convention this month.  I hope this is being incorrectly reported, as the last candidate for governor who avoided a state visit by Charlton Heston lost their election and gave up the Office of Governor to a Democrat.


  1. Pricinct Committeeman says

    This is a fine piece of writing. But, you miss the point of property rights. It’s not the risk of libility that a property owner regards in this issue. It’s the risk that he loses control of what can and can not be done on his property.

    Gun rights should not be able to trump property rights. If they can, then the reverse could also be true. In other words, if you think I have no control of my private property, then why do you think you should have control of your right to bear arms.

    I don’t always agree with the Goldwater folks. But, this time, they are very right.

  2. Veritas Vincit says

    Fair enough. But what of parking lots that are public property such as municipal locations, schools, parks, and government office buildings?

    Individual private property owners perhaps should have the options. Most prohibit firearms due to the current liability issue. This legislation makes that matter moot.

    Lets discuss it.

  3. Veritas Vincit says

    Back to you PC 🙂

    Since all rights flow from the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment provides the individual the guaranteed right of self defense;

    AND, since all property can be considered “private” property, if therefore property rights were permitted to trump the Second Amendment on all private property, all citizens would then surrender their basic Second Amendment right to self defense.

    Therefore, since a property owner cannot insure your protection, your Second Amendment right trumps the rights of the property owner.

    The writer at the Goldwater Institute got it wrong this time.

  4. Interesting theory VV,
    Now wouldn’t this also apply to 1st amendment rights as well as 2nd amendment rights?

  5. My rights as a property owner should never be trumped. Plain and simple. I am a long time card carrying NRA member but this is too far. I don’t care what the law says, and neither will my insurance agent. They’ve already told me to expect my insurance to rise.
    All it would ever take is for one dumb jury to ignore the law and side with the guy suing me.

  6. nightcrawler says

    I am a big fan of John, most of the time. This piece of legislation is more window dressing than substance. Has anyone seen seen signs in parking lots (either public or private) that state “no firearms in car trucks”. I am sure many law abiding citizens already keep firearms in the boot. Say after a day at the range, they stop by the supermarket or WallyWorld (in a futile effort to buy more ammo) before heading home. No earth shattering change there. So who really are the targets (no pun intended) of such legislation: schools, churches, businesses, sporting or entertainment venues ?

    I agree with the above comments that property rights trump gun rights. You have have your guns, just stay off my land with them unless invited. It is not ok to burn the American flag on my front yard either, even though the 1st amendment may protect that right on public property.

    PS. I too am a card carrying NRA member.

  7. Why do you say that Brewer stood up her friends at the NRA Convention? Wrong. Here is part of the story of her speech at the Convention.

    Brewer champions gun rights at NRA convention
    by Matthew Benson – May. 17, 2009 12:00 AM
    The Arizona Republic
    Violence continues to roil south of the border between drug cartels at war with each other and the Mexican government.

    But Republican Gov. Jan Brewer says she opposes additional regulations intended to keep weapons purchased in this country from finding their way into the fight.

    “New gun laws are not the answer to increasing gun violence in Mexico,” Brewer told National Rifle Association members gathered Friday in downtown Phoenix for the gun-rights group’s annual convention.
    “The answer is to secure the border and leave the freedoms of the United States citizen alone. Don’t mess with the Second Amendment,” declared Brewer, an NRA member.

  8. Pricinct Committeeman says

    Let’s see VV.

    You want to allow guns in cars on school parking lots?

    That single item in your arguments point out the total falacy of your case. Property rights are often trumpted by guns. It’s called a crime when that happens, isn’t it?

    My property, even if made available for “public” parking is still my property.

  9. Pricinct Committeeman says

    By the way, there is nothing in the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding “self-defense.” It speaks of the need for “..security of a free State….” It is that defense that allows us the right to bear arms.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    How do you make a case for your point with false arguments?

  10. Pricinct Committeeman says

    And, back to you, VV.

  11. Veritas Vincit says

    nightcrawler, “…just stay off my land with them unless invited.” re: posting #6:

    Unless invited is exactly what churches, employers, the utility company, Wallyworld do when they open their doors for business. This wouldn’t apply to you’re front driveway for example because its not a parking lot where the public is generally invited.

    Jay T. posting #7: Re-reading what I wrote about Governor Brewer, I said, “I hope this is being incorrectly reported…”

    Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Several attendees at the NRA Convention reported that the Governor did not attend – but she had prepared remarks instead.

    PC in posting #8: you said, “You want to allow guns in cars on school parking lots?” My answer is YES (since the carnage at Columbine might have been significantly reduced had those criminal students KNOWN that someone on campus could have fired back and there might have been a gun or two available to school staff in the parking lot.

    Also, recall the church worker who, when confronted during a full service by a deranged individual with a gun, shot back and saved all lives in the church that Sunday? Had she not had her gun, how many would have been killed?

    PC, (cont), IF your property is “… made available for “public” parking” because of an event you host or support – and someone in my family is shot (like the McDonalds case with hte woman in Texas who’s family was killed because she didn’t have her gun in her car), I will be totally able to sue YOU for not providing for the protection of my family members on your property and NOT allowing me to protect them either. Case Law already exists to that end.

    Now back to ya’all 🙂

Leave a Reply