Constituent Mail: Stolen SLIF Monies

This afternoon I recieved a passionate email from a property owner in Lake Havasu City who had read an article about the recent robbing of State Lake Improvement Funds from the Arizona State Parks Department for the purpose of attempting to balance the state budget.

Along with my response, I have included a link to the article about this that appeared in the Today's News Herald.

http://www.havasunews.com/articles/2008/07/23/news/doc4886b360e247b023412416.txt


Dear Mr. John Q Public,

Thank you for taking the time to write me, voicing your outrage at the announcement of the cancellation of SLIF grants previously awarded to Lake Havasu City by the AZ State Parks Department. I fought tooth and nail to prevent State Lake Improvement Funds from being stolen. Unfortunately uncontrolled spending and unrestrained greed by our current governor and legislators on both sides of the aisle have contributed to the $2.3 Billion Dollar Shortfall we now face. To address this issue, supporters of the recently enacted budget stole money from every designated fund in addition to borrowing $2 Million MORE dollars to dig us further into debt. Mr. JQ Public, as a fiscal conservative I continuously fight for prudent spending of taxpayer money with priorities on transportation infrastructure (including SLIF dollars), public safety, and education.

I understand your frustration as it echos my own. If I am re-elected I hope to continue this battle, restoring and then preserving stolen designated funds.

Most respectfully,

Constituent Mail ~ Arizona Marriage Referendum

NOTE: I will be voting to send this issue to the ballot so that the voters may voice their support or opposition to this proposal.

Dear Representative Groe:

I urge your support of HCR2065/SCR1038, which would put a marriage amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot. The amendment would state: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

Marriage is so important that it is uniquely protected in the law and culture. It predates the law and the Constitution and is an anthropological and sociological reality, not primarily a legal one. No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that allowed it to become irrelevant have faded into history.

Please vote "yes" on HCR2065/SCR1038 - the Arizona marriage referendum. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. It is very important to me and my family.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public

Constituent Mail: BHC Photo Radar

NOTE: I received this email from a constituent in BHC who, much like myself, strongly opposes Photo Radar. The constituent asked me to print this on the blog as he/she doubted it would be printed in the paper.

Dear Editor,

Bullhead City is not a sleepy little fishing town anymore. We are on the map as the home of the Arizona Tax Revolt that has taxing entities across the state realizing that the jig is up and that property taxes will soon be reduced and future increases limited. In the tradition of Paul Revere, Neil Young’s article has alerted us to the very real possibility of Photo Radar. This technology can be used to ticket BOTH red light runners and someone going a few miles per hour over the speed limit.

See their Press Release: http://www.redflex.com/public_documents/asx_announcements/2008-02-18%20Chillicothe%20Ohio.pdf

I am very much opposed to the deployment of this technology because it is simply too Orwellian, and frankly it being considered merely as a means of revenue enhancement. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Council approve it guided only by staff’s desire that the bureaucracy be sustained at its present level at a time when sales tax revenue has dipped. Of course the Council may be looking at Photo Radar as a means to fund expensive new pet projects like an aquatic or convention center. Apparently some Council members don’t consider speeding tickets given out by robots to be a tax on motorists, each of which will likely net several hundred dollars shared between the Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. and Bullhead City.

I believe that Bullhead City residents, already angry at the Police crackdown on traffic infractions while crimes like burglaries and worse go unsolved, would be willing to circulate a Referendum petition to require that Council approval of these systems be decided by the people. Or of course the Council could refer this question to the ballot themselves rather than deciding such a contentious issue for us. Speak up now or it may be too late!

Constituent Mail: SB1214~Concealed Weapons, School Grounds

NOTE: This piece of constituent mail was written to a Senator (not our Senator Gould) who voted against SB 1214 which allows people with a valid CCW permit to carry on the grounds of a community college or university.

Dear Senator "XYZ",

We are two of your voting constituents (District "007") and voted for you in your last election. You are our voice and we want you to vote YES on SB 1214!

This bill is to allow people with a concealed weapons (CCW) permit "to carry" on a school campus. Have you taken a Concealed Weapons training course, Senator "XYZ"? We are trained not only on how to use a weapon, but when NOT TO USE a weapon. If I am in fear for my life, my weapon "might" be used only if certain safety criteria are met first before shooting. We are taught gun safety! A CCW permit holder is not imitating the Wild West days of Jesse James and running ramped or firing a gun at will.

You have upheld our Second Amendment rights in the past and we demand that our rights to carry a concealed weapon even on a school campus be honored as well.

Thank you for your YES vote on SB 1214, and we look forward to hearing back from you on this matter.

Abusive Constituent Mail & My Response

I honestly do not know how to begin this post other than to tell say that I sit here, for probably the third night this week, greatly disturbed over the amount of rude, abusive, threatening email from angry constituents that has filled my inbox and those of my colleagues. All who know me know that I love communicating with constituents and welcome the opportunity to hear differing viewpoints but a surprising amount of recent emails have been outrageous!

The email that spurred this post. the straw that broke the camel's (or elephant's) back was not directed to me but was an email sent to a colleague. The author of the email forwarded a copy to me and to a large number of media persons/outlets. I was shocked when I read the email and pray that the author, a patriot and a passionate American realizes his mistake and makes amends. What follows is my response, not directly to the author (I was asked not to contact him) but to another constituent addressing the same legislation/legislator.


I understand passion and admire persistence, even accept anger expressed in email communications but there is never, in my opinion, an excuse for rudeness or emotional abuse. Unfortunately many people do not realize that these type of emails almost always backfire. So many decisions made by government officials affect our daily life, it is easy to let emotions get out of control but proper thought must be given when communicating by email.

The effect of the inappropriate email is misunderstood...the abusive letters do not hurt, the threats do not motivate us to change our mind. Hardly any weight is given to these type letters since there is no sense of decorum. (I know this as I have been on the receiving end of many of these also, for a variety of votes.) It is possible to disagree with dignity and as I mentioned before, even possible to express extreme anger without being over-the-top rude. In fact, I think that you and I will probably end up disagreeing on this very subject but you and I will more than likely continue to engage each other despite disagreeing because we communicate without bashing each other, name calling or other disrespectful actions. Now, that being said, you and others may not have an ounce of respect for "Representative ABC". That is your choice and I am not attempting to change you mind, I am just saying that their ought to be given a bit of respect for the office. Am I making sense?

I commend you for taking the time to engage in the process but I beg you to urge your friends and colleagues to re-evaluate the effectiveness of their communications. It is so easy to hit the "delete" button when you read the first inappropriate comment...I believe the majority of my colleagues do this. it is our job to listen to our constituents...whether we agree with them or not but we do not have to take verbal or in this case, written abuse. "Representative ABC" is a reasonable, logical member who takes his/her job very seriously. If you have the opportunity to express your opinion on an issue before he/she votes, he/she will take what you say under advisement.

I find it interesting that I am "lobbying" on the behalf of "Representative ABC" as we are not close, not friends and do not work together as a rule but I must be honest in telling you that I admire him/her in that he/she is a very good representative for rural Arizona. He/She has been tireless in his/her advocacy for the residents of district XYZ and although I consider myself a bit more conservative then he/she, I can tell you that he/she is a conservative republican.

I appreciate you listening to me and hearing me out. Honestly, the disgustingly inappropriate emails we receive just sap our energy when for the most part, no matter how misguided we are or appear to be we believe we are doing the right thing...standing up for what is right. As blessed as we are to have this honor and serve in this capacity, just fighting the democrats day is and day out is difficult and depressing…the job sometimes appears hopeless and sucks the life out of you. Evil is everywhere here and people like you, who are gracious and take the time to say thanks are few and far between.. There is tremendous reward for doing what is right, whether it is acknowledged or not but there is never respite from the criticism…I believe even that can be weathered when it does not constitute abuse.

Most sincerely and with great respect,
RepGroe

Constituent Mail ~ HB 2677 Real ID Act; Implementation Prohibited

HB 2677 prohibits Arizona from participating in the Federal REAL ID Act of 2005 (REAL ID).

Below is an email in support of this bill:

Greetings Everyone:

Regardless of whether or not you live in Arizona . The Real ID ACT if implemented, will affect you . Therefore we need everyone all over the country to write to the House members in Arizona and encourage them to support HB2677. If we fail , your information including medical, financial, the number of weapons registered to you , number of vehicles and what they are, your religious affiliations will ultimately be available to groups, agencies, foreign governments. If it pertains to you it will be available, whether you like it or not. Crazy you say? Well no, here is a fact: the institution that will be compiling the data is a international Company named the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators(AAMVA).

So lets kill this REAL ID bill by supporting HB 2677 in the state of Arizona.

Constituent Mail ~ HB 2573 off-highway vehicles; user fee

House Bill 2573 creates an off-highway vehicle user indicia, off-highway vehicle equipment requirements and off-highway vehicle operating regulations.

I voted "NO" on this bill for a variety of reasons (see recent post titled "Passage of HB 2573 is Criminal") and continue to work towards this bills demise. Below is an email from a constituent opposing this bill:

Thank you for trying to do the right thing by voting no on HB 2753. The law is absurd, and adding another layer of bureaucracy is equally absurd.

Families who have these vehicles I think for the most part try and protect the environment. I would go for more education on the environment and how to protect it; what to do and not do while using these vehicles. Your concern on the law itself is right on, as far as being not defining and making it a class 3-misdemeanor. I don’t know what it is with law makers, you pass laws and think that everyone is going to understand and obey them. When you try to pass a law such as this one that is opened to so much interpretation from the officers, attorneys’ and judges then the public becomes the big looser. I seriously think Arizona Game & Fish see the dollars being brought in more than anything else.

Thank you for seeing that and doing what you could do to stop it by voting “nay.”

Passage of HB 2573 is Criminal!!

This post is a copy of a response to a heated email I received from an angry constituent when he learned of my "No" vote on HB 2573.

I stand by my decision to vote against this bill (HB 2573) and will continue to do all that I can to make sure this bill never sees the light of day. It is unfortunate that you did not call me as I requested. I am extremely confident that I would have made myself clear when explaining why Jerry Weiers and all who voted for this bill did the hunters, sportsman, and nature-lovers a grave disservice by supporting this horrid piece of legislation. I do not think that the bill would have had as much support if Jerry Weiers did not mislead other legislators by telling them that the NRA was going to “weight” the bill & use it on their legislative scorecard. I found this to be untrue when I spoke with an NRA rep who was aware of the false information being spread by Mr. Weiers.

While I do have my doubts that licensing fees generated will actually be used for their intended purposes, I can live with this portion of the bill. I have two ATVs and ride regularly around LHC, both on and off road with friends and family and have little qualms about paying these fees and applaud their purpose. If Jerry Weiers bill stopped there, more than likely, I would have voted yes. But, Weiers bill venture far into dangerous territory and it is unconscionable my colleagues voted for its passage.

The text of the bill states that criminal action includes:
Damage to the environment: excessive pollution of air, water, or land.
Abuse of the watershed, cultural or natural resources.
Impairment of plant or animal life.

In another portion of the bill, the text includes:
Damage to:
Wildlife habitat
Riparian Areas
Cultural or Natural Resources
Property or Improvements

Now, this sounds great, right? I agree that it does. We need to preserve our beautiful desert landscape, our natural resources, the flora and fauna. I cannot argue that but...what constitutes damage? What constitutes abuse of a watershed? When, as a lawmaker, I vet bills as great as they sound and as much as I agree with the bill's intent I must ask questions. One of the questions almost always asked is "are the terms defined?" Will a sportsman who is out enjoying a ride be able to ascertain if he/she is breaking the law? Under the provisions of this bill, I do not think so. No one I spoke with could. Even testimony from Game and Fish representatives brought to light that they could not define these terms but that they "would know it when they see it."

The enforcement of this bill would be entirely too subjective for me, especially when times are tight and every agency budget is fighting for cash. I was elected to protect the rights of citizens. This bill undermines those rights by not providing enough information so that law abiding citizens can continue to remain law abiding citizens. I can only imagine when budget times continue to tighten that enforcement agencies will step up efforts to ticket & fine unsuspecting, otherwise upstanding individuals in order to pad their budget. I will not let that happen. You find that disappointing? I am disappointed you think so.

D***n, I hope that you can remember the reality that my name is on almost every pro-2nd Amendment piece of legislation sponsored since I took office in 2004. I am an NRA member with an A ranking as a legislator, a member of Arizona State Rifle & Pistol Association, I believe that I am even a member (or have been in the recent past) of the M%# S&*^%n Club. If you let one vote sway you, if other club members let this vote sway them, I regret that but so be it. I did not vote no on this bill arbitrarily but because that, although there is some good there is too much bad. I will regret losing your support but will not regret voting my conscious.

Most sincerely,
RepGroe

Constituent Mail

When I communicate electronically I attempt to couch the vital parts of my message with words and/or phrases that hint to my tone. Maybe this helps, maybe and more than likely, I am fooling myself. The writer of this email employs no such aid and although, I do not need well-written, formal, or flowery emails, it does help me know where you are coming from if you provide a few clues.

Since our property value has decreased, shouldn't our taxes decrease? Did you understand the Notice of Value you received from the county assessor? Did you know you cannot do anything about your 2008 taxes due in Oct of 2008. You had to appeal 2008 taxes in JANUARY OF 2007. If you ask the assessor office about it they will tell you we only follow the rules given to us by the lawmakers who spend your tax dollars. Now is the time you can appeal your 2009 taxes due in Oct 2009. Senator Gould promised us a property tax relief bill which would lower our property taxes. Where is it?

BTW, the tax relief bill Senator Gould & I sponsored was held by Senate Finance Chair, Senator Jim Warring. You can read about it by clicking the title of this post.

Constituent Mail: Commentary On SB1214~Concealed Weapons;School Campus

SB1214 – Separating Fact from Hyperbole

As can be expected with any socially-charged topic, the issue of Sen. Karen Johnson’s (and co-sponsors) SB1214 has created quite a stir here in Arizona. Unfortunately, there is more emotion, exaggeration, and distortion of facts being bantered about than at a WWE ‘SmackDown’.

First and foremost, I’d place a huge wager that the vast majority of those lambasting this bill have never read it, nor the associated Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) concerning firearms use, possession, carry, and related issues. Research SB1214 and ARS Title 13, Chapter 32 at http://www.azleg.gov/ and stop listening to the ignorant (uneducated) emotionally pontificate on this issue.

Let’s establish some foundational facts:
1. Federal Law already allows certified CCW licensees to carry weapons on school grounds (18 USC § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)) – unless otherwise restricted by local law. Some states (e.g., Utah) do not restrict CCW carry on campuses, and there are no ‘wild west shoot outs’ as a result.
2. Legal concealed weapons carry is already the law of Arizona. CCW licensees are subjected to an extensive law enforcement check, where any significant prior infractions disqualify an applicant. Applicants are required to be 21 or older, attend regulated mandated training including firearms use, safety, laws, and legal briefings on use of deadly force. Applicants must pass safety and practical shooting exams at a range – under supervision of certified instructors.
3. Most CCW holders are experienced firearms owners/operators – all have passed the training and investigation. Many, like me, are current or former military with extensive weapons training. Because we are conscientious no-nonsense folks, the general public isn’t even aware we are armed in the grocery stores, gas stations, malls, cinemas, and convenience stores you frequent.
4. Despite the Chicken Little-like cries of anti-gunners, Arizona did not fall into chaos when licensed CCW became state law in 1994. You don’t see licensed CCW holders shooting jay-walkers and candy-bar shop lifters like the anti-gun folks warned. Nor have any of the 48 states which have codified their citizens’ rights granted under the U.S. Constitution (that would be the 2nd Amendment to those who never read that either) had systematic problems with CCW holders. (Note: most states, like AZ, have ‘shall issue’ CCW laws, another 8 have ‘may issue’ laws.)
5. SB1214 does not require anyone to carry a weapon, anywhere. SB1214 does not demand that anyone use a weapon, in any circumstance. Distortions and outright lies aside, SB1214 will not arm students and teachers around AZ. It forces no one to do anything.
6. Sen. Johnson’s bill proposes that individuals, meeting rigid state-sanctioned requirements, be permitted (not required or obligated) to carry a weapon in the heretofore ‘gun free school zones’ should they wish; same as we do in our homes, businesses, stores, parks, etc. This harmonizes state law with federal.
7. While many violent criminals and murderers are mentally deficient – few are so stupid as to plan an attack on an armed target. Claims that such persons don’t “think clearly or logically, so he would not reason through the possibility of confrontation with an armed teacher” (a.k.a. victim) lacks credibility and logic. Why do these same attackers target schools (a.k.a. ‘gun free zones’) instead of police stations, National Guard Armories, Military Installations, or even sportsmen at the local gun club/range?
8. Even the suicidal psychopaths that eventually take their own lives are looking for soft targets to maximize their demented 15-minutes of fame. Armed trained adults on campus might not totally deter such psychos – but they might be able to end their carnage while the victim count is still low. (Case in point: 09-Dec-07, an armed CCW church member in Colorado stopped Matthew Murray before he killed anyone inside the church; he had previous killed 2 people at a missionary training facility and 2 people in the church parking lot. After being incapacitated by the experienced CCW licensee, Murray killed himself.)

Much of the anti SB1214 propaganda has been by teachers. Those I have read recite the same disingenuous fear-based nonsense that permitting guns on campus will result in more random violence… shootings over hallway scuffles and lunch line cuts. In their illogical world, CCW holders who carry and behave responsibly everywhere else in the state will suddenly become idiots when on a school campus. I think not.

Some teachers have stated they don’t want to carry guns; great – they shouldn’t. But their fear, inexperience, and lack of training should not preclude those who are properly trained and motivated from doing so.

SB1214 is a good idea – one which gets the full support of citizens like myself who are willing, able, and fully qualified to protect myself and/or my charges.

Respectfully,
Joe Walker
Nationally Certified Firearms Instructor
AZ State Certified Firearms Instructor
Former US Army Officer (Ranger, Airborne)

Joe Walker has been an avid shooter since childhood; he was raised around firearms and learned their safe and effective use at an early age. He became a certified shooting instructor while competing on his university’s rifle team in the mid-1970s. Later, he received advanced precision long range shooting training with the US Army and served as the Captain of one of the Army’s installation Rifle & Pistol Teams. He has participated in civilian and military shooting competitions domestically and internationally. He is a nationally certified firearms instructor and an Arizona State certified CCW course instructor. He has an AZ CCW license and is a decorated veteran Army Officer.

Constituent Mail: SB1214~Concealed Weapons, School Grounds

Letter to the Editor, Tucson Citizen: My Opinion Regarding LEGAL Guns on Campus.

In reply to your 06-Feb-08 OpEd condemning Sen. Karen Johnson and her co-sponsorship of SB1214, I see that you are reciting the same old disingenuous anti personal rights and responsibilities chorus of the Brady-Bloomberg-Feinstein-Schumer-Soros clan.

To borrow your words, “Let’s be straight and upfront about it” – legally owned firearms in the hands of trained, screened, licensed adults (21 years old minimum) duly motivated to provide security and protection for themselves and their charges (if any) always have been, are today, and will remain, a serious deterrent to most violent criminal activity.

While many violent criminals and murderers are mentally deficient – few are so stupid as to plan an attack on an armed target. Your claim that such persons don’t “think clearly or logically, so he would not reason through the possibility of confrontation with an armed teacher” (a.k.a. victim) lacks credibility and logic. Why do these same attackers target schools (‘gun free zones’) instead of police stations, National Guard Armories, Military Installations, or even sportsmen at the local gun club/range? Is your logic so skewed by your anti-gun owner fervor that you refuse to see truth in front of your nose?

Your assertion that despite passing law enforcement investigation, finger print searches, classroom training, legal deadly force briefings, range safety, and live-firing exercises – CCW holders lack “the judgment, training and emotional stability to bring guns onto school campuses” is a sham at best.

Have you taken the CCW course? Could you pass the intensive background investigation? Could you pass the exams and practical exercises? I’d guess the answer to most, if not all of these questions is “no”; not that this stops you from slamming those who have.

You paint with the broadest possible brush to obscure your real fear of citizens standing up for themselves and/or others – versus being helpless dependants of the ever (not so) present government. Where were the “law enforcement officers who have the training, judgment and experience” while victims were being slaughtered at Columbine, West Nickel Mines School, Virginia Tech, SuccessTech Academy, etc.? Law enforcement wasn’t inside these schools until the carnage was already over – but qualified adult CCW holders (actual or potential) were present throughout. However, they were as helpless as the rest of the victims – thanks to your idea that the 2nd Amendment is geographically applicable.

I wonder how loud you would scream if the government decided your beloved 1st Amendment was null and void on a geographical basis?

Do not distort my words or miss my point; I am not blaming or casting aspersions at any LEO, office, or agency for any of these murders. I am pointing out the blatantly obvious truth that police/law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time. What a pity, if they could – as in your panacea – we would have no robbery, no car-jacking, no mugging, no rape, no crime… Ah what a dream world – but not a reality!

Does SB1214 require anyone to carry a weapon – anywhere? Does SB1214 demand, under penalty of law, that anyone use a weapon – in any circumstance? Again, the answer to these questions is “no”. Sen. Johnson’s bill proposes that individuals, meeting rigid state-sanctioned requirements, be permitted (not required or obligated) to carry a weapon in the heretofore ‘gun free school zones’ should they wish. Whereas, you propose to deny self defense rights to all persons regardless of ability or legality – based simply on your unsubstantiated fear. Also, please note the obvious fact that school zones are only ‘gun free’ to law abiding citizens – criminals and gang-bangers carry weapons wherever they want.

In closing, your fear-based attack against Sen. Johnson and SB1214 lacks reason, logic, and recognition of fact. Arizona did not turn into a Wild West shooting gallery when the CCW law passed some years ago, despite the Chicken Little-like cries of the anti-gun press. Nor did Texas, Florida, Georgia, or any other state that dutifully recognizes the rights of law abiding qualified citizens to bear arms, fall into chaos with scenarios you are trying to paint.

If you have any moral honestly and/or civic integrity, you will consider these points of fact and reassess your slam against Sen. Johnson, her co-sponsors, SB1214, and perhaps even (though I sincerely doubt it) – your anti-gun owner fervor.

SB1214 is a good idea – one which gets the full support of citizens like myself that are willing, able, and fully qualified to protect myself, my charges, and even you.

Respectfully,
Joe Walker
Nationally Certified Firearms Instructor
AZ State Certified Firearms Instructor
Former US Army Ranger

Constituent Mail

Represenatives Biggs, Burges, and Groe,

Thank you so much for leading the way on HCM 2003 opposing a NORTH AMERICAN UNION.

You have reached the true meaning of a PATRIOT ...and know exactly what your job is...defending the sovereignty of the UNITED STATES.

You three are heroes.

In my own community of Douglas we are having issues with the port of entry. This port of entry that is really a NAFTA FREEWAY...is being built in the wrong place and will cause great traffic issues for our community. They have no evacuation plan in place and plan to put commercial traffic with the regular traffic..which is illegal but the report that the GOA OFFICE did...says differently.

Thank you!!

Constituent Mail

I love hearing from my constituents and make it a practice to read and answer emails that are sent to my legislative email address from the folks in District III. (Form emails, up to 400 at a time clogging my inbox, go unanswered.) Most emails contain requests for assistance and I am glad to help if I can and if I cannot, I try to provide the name and number of someone who can. Many emails contain comments and perspective on a particular bill that assist me in shaping an opinion on that proposed legislation. And then there are some like this....

The United States is a socialist country and uses national socialism through a 2 way lobotomy (low band width programmer) bug in planted secretly after birth in the forehead sinus cavity to provide for profiled pacification and the direct control needed to run all of the activity used to drive the agendas of the political parties plus the control is used to psychologically condition the citizens so it’s effects cannot be undone while their educations are crippled to deny them the ability to defend themselves or retaliate outside of the pre-set stages of the government used to control damage so that a new approach can be used.