GOP Candidate Jesse Kelly

When the anchor began to ask Kelly why he accepted the endorsement from political action group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), a controversial organization linked to neo-Nazi groups, Kelly’s campaign spokesman jumped in to cut her off, saying the question was “not unacceptable” because it was “not recent.” When the anchor persisted, Kelly echoed his spokesman’s sentiment:

KELLY: It was in 2010. This election is about jobs, and the economy, and lower gas prices. Frankly it’s completely out of bounds.

Watch it:

However, although both Kelly and his spokesman are referring to the endorsement from AILPAC during the 2010 race that Kelly ran against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the group actually renewed their endorsement of Kelly just last week. Kelly is currently running again to replace Giffords’ spot now that she is stepping down.

It’s unclear whether Kelly actively sought out the group’s endorsement, or whether he received it unsolicited. And, to be clear, Kelly should not be blamed for someone’s unsolicited decision to endorse him. He is accountable, however, for declining to distance himself from the group when given the opportunity to do so during the KGUN9 interview.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (R)

Bennett is the latest Republican elected official to call into question Obama’s place of birth in recent months. His comments were first flagged by the site White House Dossier:

BENNETT: First of all, I’m not playing to the birthers, I’m not a birther. I believe that the president was born in Hawaii, or at least I hope he was…Hawaii has a special provision in their law that allows other government officials from other states to request what’s called a verification in lieu of a certified copy of a birth certificate. So I’m not asking for the certified copy of the birth certificate at all…I was frankly expecting that they would very quickly and very simply say ‘yes.’ Eight weeks later, they haven’t said, I can’t seem to get them to say yes.

In fact, Hawaii said “yes” over a year ago. Last April, Obama released a certified copy of his long form birth certificate to the public. And while that did nothing to quell the furor of birthers like Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, it more than meets Bennett’s verification requirement.

And yet Bennett is insisting on still more costly and time-consuming work by the state of Hawaii to verify they have the original document on hand. The reason for his suspicion? Arpaio’s sham investigation into the copy released by President Obama raised sufficient questions:

BENNETT: When Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s posse released a press conference a few week ago, or a month ago or whenever it was, that the birth certificate posted on the White House website might be fraudulent, I started getting, as you might imagine, literally over 1,200 emails from people saying ‘well that’s proof, you should require the president to produce the original of his birth certificate in order to be on the ballot of Arizona.’

Arpaio’s press conference more closely resembled an SNL parody than a serious investigation, and it was widely ridiculed for employing faulty “science” and drawing wild conclusions based on little more than technological anomalies.

Bennett is hardly the first person to propose removing Obama from the general election ballot this fall, but as secretary of state, he is in a position to actually act on those threats. Bennett’s insistence that he is not a birther and is simply doing his due diligence as the state’s top election official is a distinction without difference, as it ignores the fact that he is accepting as possibility that Obama’s publicly available birth certificate is fraudulent.

In a surprise move last night, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed a bill demanding that the federal government turn over up to 25 million acres of public lands to the state by 2014 or face a lawsuit.  In a statement, Brewer said that she was:

“…concerned about the lack of certainty this legislation could create for individuals holding existing leases on federal lands.  Given the difficult economic times, I do not believe this is the time to add to that uncertainty.”

The overwhelming legal expert opinion is that this type of bill is unconstitutional — which is how the courts have ruled over many decades.  The Salt Lake Tribune called a similar effort in Utah “tilting at windmills.”

This is a blow to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate front group that designs “model” legislation and is funded by the likes of Koch Industries, BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.  ALEC endorsed this particular legislation, as the Associated Press reported:

Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.

Turning over public lands could eventually lead to their privatization, opening them up to mining, drilling and other industrial activity.

A similar bill demanding federal lands be turned over to the state was signed into law by Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) last month.  The state has demanded 30 million acres of public lands by 2015 or it will sue.  And, the Utah legislature has already authorized the state’s attorney general to spend $3 million on the anticipated legal battle.

Brewer’s veto of this bill is also a major setback to those aiming to start a new “sagebrush rebellion” in the West, and may bring an end to other lawmakers’ dreams of privatizing public lands.  As Arizona state senator Al Melvin, the primary sponsor of the bill, said:

What we envision is all of the Western states going before the Supreme Court to force this issue.

It seems that for now, this unconstitutional effort has been thwarted, despite similar bills rumored to be in development in Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) isn’t pleased with Brewer or the legislature and said as much Friday, saying Brewer took away “the once chance” homeowners had “to get some help,” The Nation reports:

“Working families were given the short end of the stick, and now Gov. Brewer and the Legislature won’t even let them have that,” Grijalva said. “This decision takes away the one chance Arizonans had to get some help navigating the banking bureaucracy that greased the skids on millions of foreclosures. It’s a clear statement of principles, that’s for sure.”

Arizona has been torched by the housing crisis — it lead the nation in foreclosures in March, and nearly half of its homeowners are underwater, the second most in the country. According to the Arizona Housing Alliance, the $50 million could help as many as 85,000 homeowners. Instead, it will go toward balancing a state budget that hands out more than a half-billion dollars in corporate tax cuts.

Photo by flickr user gilsonrome

Arizona recently became the latest state to pull such shenanigans, diverting $50 million of its share of the settlement to balance its state budget:

At issue is the decision of the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer to tap $50 million from the $97.7 million the state received as part of its settlement with five mortgage-lending firms. They said they needed the money from the national mortgage settlement to balance the state budget. Initially, the intent was to use the money for prison construction. [...]

The money comes from a settlement [Arizona Attorney General Tom] Horne’s office negotiated in February with five lenders, and it is intended to provide relief to people affected by the foreclosure crisis as well as to prevent poor lending practices.

“There’s a lot of pressure on the budget,” said Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin to justify the move. But as Mark Ladov and Meghna Philip of the Brennan Center for Justice noted, that money could do a lot of good in a state that has been pounded by the housing crisis:

The final state budget sweeps $50 million from the foreclosure settlement into the state’s general fund. This is despite the fact that Arizona posted the highest foreclosure rate in the nation in March, with an astonishing one out of every 300 housing units receiving a foreclosure notice…The Arizona Housing Alliance estimates that $50 million could provide 75,000 troubled homeowners with housing counseling and 10,000 homeowners with legal assistance. That investment would more than pay for itself by strengthening communities, boosting property values and helping to restore the state’s economic health.

Instead, Arizona, like several other states, will simply siphon the money elsewhere, leaving homeowners to continue struggling on their own.

Jesse Kelly 2010 campaign flyer

In the ad, Kelly makes a widely-debunked claim that ObamaCare will “cut $500 billion from Medicare.” The legislation aims to achieve $500 billion in Medicare savings, which will extend the life of the program and provide better care.

But after his disclaimer, Kelly and his grandfather Hank Allgyer say:

KELLY: I’m committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare for our seniors.”

ALLGYER: Don’t let Ron Barber cut my benefits, Jesse. I’ve earned them.

KELLY: Don’t worry, Grandpa. I won’t.

ALLGYER: I know you’ll protect us.

Watch the video:

On his website, Kelly says he supports “preserving, protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare” and does not support “privatizing, eliminating or phasing out these programs in any way.” He advocates actions to prevent Social Security from “going bankrupt” but lays out five principles that would seemingly prevent any real action to do that:

1. Any solution must be bipartisan
2. I will not vote for any solution that privatizes social security
3. I will not vote for any solution that raises taxes
4. I will not vote for any solution that cuts benefits
5. I will not vote for any solution that raises the retirement age

By ruling out changing the amount of money coming in to the Social Security fund (raising taxes) or the amount going out (cutting benefits or changing the retirement age), he seems to take virtually everything off the table. But he hasn’t always had this view.

The Hill noted that as recently as April 18, his website called for partial privatization of Social Security. His earlier view that “Younger workers should have the choice of allocating a portion of their contribution into a personal retirement account in their name,” is has been completely erased from his positions page.

And, the same article notes, in a 2010 debate, Kelly said the nation must take steps to reform, privatize, and phase out entitlements. “You need to fulfill your promises in the near future while phasing out future generations, taking steps to privatize, vouchers, everything,” he said. “It’s not an option of should it be done. It must be done.”

Kelly, a construction manager and Tea Party favorite, infamously hosted an M16 automatic weapons shooting campaign event to help supporters “get on target” to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office,” just months before a gunman went on a shooting spree at a Giffords community event in Tuscon, leaving six dead and a dozen wounded — including both Giffords and Barber. Giffords resigned her seat in January to focus on her recovery.

His issues page has since been changed to remove the phrase “The Second Amendment of the Constitution is not just about hunting. It is about the right of a free people to defend themselves.”

The Kelly website makes no mention of whether the nation has always been at war with Eastasia, but Kelly apparently does not think Arizona voters can remember all the way back to April 2012.

Neo-Nazi Shooter J.T. Ready and Former State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ)

Ready’s beliefs were extreme even among extremists. In 2007, for example, he wrote that illegal immigration occurs because “negroids screw monkeys and rape babies in afreaka [sic]. Then stupid white man who licks kosher jew rear lets negroids in.” Yet Ready traveled surprisingly close to the center of power in his state. Ready claims he was a protégé to former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), the author of Arizona’s harsh immigration law who was recently removed from office in a recall election, and there is ample documentation that the two men knew each other and that Pearce once supported Ready politically.

Pearce and Ready’s relationship stretches back at least to 2004, when Pearce ordained Ready as an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. By 2006, when Ready ran for Mesa City Council — a campaign that sputtered after the public learned that Ready was once court-martialed and kicked out of the Marine Corps — he received Pearce’s endorsement. Ready also claims that he was with Pearce’s son Josh when Josh Pearce got a tattoo of an iron eagle with a swastika on his neck and chest, but that he also talked Josh out of joining a skinhead group.

Pearce later tried to distance himself from Ready, but Ready insisted as recently as last year that Pearce was a seminal figure in his life. In an interview with a local Fox station, Ready called Pearce “a surrogate father” who “enlightened him,” that they spent time together at Pearce’s cabin, and that they were “around each other quite a bit.” In the same local news segment, Pearce admits that he had an association with Ready, but denies that it was as close as Ready suggests. Watch it:

Ready is dead, and Pearce obviously has an interest in downplaying his relationship with Ready if a deep bond did once exist between the men. So it may never be known with certainty whether Pearce was the father figure Ready claims he was. Ready, however, does admit to one divide between him and the former Arizona senator. He claims that Pearce taught him to stay “more covert” for “long term strategy aims,” but Ready ultimately chose to ignore this advice.

Unfortunately, this fantasy isn’t limited to just one unusually radical candidate for elected office. Rather, the Arizona House is expected to vote today on a bill motivated entirely by the same imaginary conspiracy, and the same bill already passed the state senate:

Arizona lawmakers appear close to sending to Gov. Jan Brewer a tea party-backed bill that proponents say would stop a United Nations takeover conspiracy but that critics claim could end state and cities’ pollution-fighting efforts and even dismantle the state unemployment office.

A final legislative vote is expected Monday on a bill that would outlaw government support of any of the 27 principles contained in the 1992 United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, also sometimes referred to as Agenda 21.

Senate Bill 1507 was passed by the state Senate last month and received an initial House affirmation Wednesday. It is sponsored by state Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, who also sponsored a state birther bill that Brewer vetoed last year.

Lest there be any doubt, Agenda 21 is not a Soros plot to destroy the game of golf. It is not, as Cruz claims, a “globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans.” And it is not, as Burges claims, “social engineering of our citizens” in “every aspect” of their lives. Agenda 21 is a twenty year-old non-binding resolution endorsed by 178 world leaders, including then-U.S. President George H. W. Bush.

So the Arizona bill addresses entirely imaginary concerns. Unfortunately, however, it will have very real consequences if enacted. The bill provides that every arm of the Arizona government “shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of” Agenda 21. But Agenda 21 expressly lists among its “principles” essential functions such as “combating poverty,” “protecting and promoting human health conditions,” “protection of the atmosphere,” and “safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes.”

In other words, if this bill becomes law, Arizona’s government agencies would instantly be forbidden from doing anything to reduce poverty. Or to combat air pollution. Or to ensure that radioactive waste does not contaminate the environment. Or potentially to do anything at all to promote human health. Under this bill, Medicaid, state unemployment and welfare programs and nearly any environmental programs would need to cease, immediately.

Simply put, this is what happens when you place irresponsible Tea Partiers who lash out at paranoid fantasies in charge of government. The proposed response to Agenda 21 would be comic if it were not so potentially tragic. In response to a non-threat presented by an entirely non-binding resolution, the Arizona legislature is set to dismantle their entire system of government — and they probably don’t even understand that this is what they are about to do.

The bad news is that the “show me your papers” provision requiring police to determine the immigration status of many people they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is not in the country legally, is likely to be upheld. And it is likely to be upheld due to a fairly strained reading of federal law.

A majority of the Court appeared sympathetic to Republican superlawyer Paul Clement’s argument that, even if the Court does not eliminate the longstanding rule against states’ setting their own immigration policy, federal law effectively deputizes Arizona to seek out and discover undocumented immigrants within its borders. Under the provision Clement relies on, states are permitted to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” So Clement claims that SB 1070 simply “cooperates” with the federal government by helping to identify undocumented immigrants that federal officials can then detain or deport.

There are a number of problems with this argument, but the most important one is that Arizona is not “cooperating” with the Attorney General in anything — a reality that is pretty conclusively demonstrated by the fact that the Attorney General is suing the state of Arizona to get them to stop enforcing SB 1070. It is a bizarre form of “cooperation” that leads your partner in an endeavor to seek a federal court order to get you to stop trying to lend a hand.

An equally important problem, which Solicitor General Don Verrilli relied upon heavily in Court, is that it’s also not true that federal law calls for the kind of sweeping “attrition through enforcement” regime that SB 1070 expressly states is its goal. The federal government does not deport people who are likely to be tortured in their home country, for example, or many victims of domestic violence. Likewise, federal immigration law delegates authority to set immigration enforcement priorities to the executive branch of the federal government, and the executive branch has used that authority to focus enforcement on high priority groups such as violent criminals and repeat offenders. SB 1070 forces the federal government to waste limited resources deciding how to handle low-priority immigrants that it has no intention of pursuing enforcement actions against — resources that could instead be spent on higher priority targets such as violent felons.

One silver lining came early in the argument when several justices, including crucial swing vote Justice Kennedy, appeared bothered by the fact that the “show me your papers” provision might permit Arizona to detain an individual longer than they would normally be detained while the state is trying to figure out whether or not the person is undocumented. A few of these questions even suggested that the provision could be unconstitutional if it extends the period when someone can be detained. Chief Justice Roberts, however, also seemed to find a way to resolve this dilemma that the Court’s conservatives could find appealing.

The Supreme Court allows two kinds of challenges to a law: “facial” challenges, that claim the law must be effectively striken from the books, and “as applied” challenges, which claim that the law cannot be applied to a particular person or entity. In order to bring a facial challenge, however, a party must show that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” Roberts pointed out that, while there may indeed be some people who spend additional time in jail because of the show me your papers provision, many people will simply have their immigration status checked while they are already stuck in jail for other offenses. Thus, because not everyone who runs afoul of SB 1070 will suffer through extended detention, the law is valid with respect to them.

This is not an entirely off the wall argument, but it is also ironic in light of another high-profile case the Supreme Court recently heard. Conservative Judge Jeffrey Sutton relied on this exact same distinction between facial and as-applied challenges in rejecting a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, yet the conservative justices largely blew off Sutton’s reasoning during oral arguments last month. It is not at all clear how Roberts can say that this distinction is powerful enough to save a Republican governor’s anti-immigrant law, but not powerful enough to save a Democratic president’s signature accomplishment.

In other words, if Roberts is interested in acting like a judge and not a partisan operative this Supreme Court term, he is caught in quite a dilemma. The very reason he offered to save SB 1070 also requires him to save Obamacare.

Russell Pearce

But that’s not how one of the key people behind that law, former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, sees it. The former Republican lawmaker, who was ousted in a recall election, was the key force behind turning SB-1070, authored by Romney adviser Kris Kobach, into law.

He told reporters today that he “absolutely” believed Mitt Romney had endorsed the law as a model for the country. The Huffington Post’s Elise Foley reports:

“The folks that he’s said [are] his advisers on this, I have worked with for years and have great confidence and trust in them,” Pearce told reporters after a Senate subcommittee hearing on the immigration law. “I know Romney is a compassionate man, most of us, I’d like to think, are. But I think he also understands the crisis and the damage to this republic and the need to enforce our law.” [...]

Romney also has advocated for what he called “self-deportation,” or making things difficult for undocumented immigrants until they decide to leave, one of the central tenets of the Arizona law. [...] “[Self-deportation] is in SB 1070,” Pearce said.

Previously, Pearce has said that Romney’s “immigration policy is identical to mine.”

Romney has tried to distance himself from Kobach, who also helped author the controversial immigration crackdowns in Alabama, South Carolina, and other states. But Kobach quickly contradicted him, saying he regularly advises senior members of Romney’s staff.

Kelly, who is running to fill Gabby Gifford’s vacated seat — made the remarks while meeting with voters at the La Cholla Country Club yesterday. A senior citizen asked the candidate about his philosophical approach to health care and whether “health care is a right or a privilege?” Kelly hemmed and hawed before conceding that he believes health care “is a privilege to some extent.” He went on to say that health care is one of those “privileges you earn.”

VOTER: Do you think that health care is a right or a privilege?

KELLY: My belief system is this. The health care for anybody but especially for our nation. The highest quality and lowest cost can only be delivered without the government. What I believe is that all things we drive, we do, health care, anything, is a privilege to some extent. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those are inalienable rights endowed by your creator. If you’re claiming a right, if you’re going to say anything’s a right, if you’re going to say you have a right to a cell phone, then who has the responsibility to pay for it? That’s what I believe.

VOTER: So you’d put health care as a privilege then?

KELLY: Absolutely, absolutely. I believe that all things we have are. But they’re privileges you earn.

Watch it:

Whether or not you agree with Kelly’s belief that health care is just a privilege, it is still a reality that far too many Americans die each year because they can’t afford access to the health care they need or receive uncompensated care that is financed by those who have insurance. Since everyone is bound to fall ill — and some may suffer an unexpected medical setback, as the Giffords tragedy illustrated — a system in which 50 million Americans are uninsured is an inefficient and quite expansive waste of tax payer dollars and resources.

Under existing law, there is little question that the administration is correct. For at least seventy years, the Supreme Court understood that state immigration laws are almost always preempted, and for good reason. Foreign nations do not take kindly to mistreatment of their citizens within the United States, and such mistreatment can have catastrophic consequences. In the Court’s words, “[e]xperience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.”

As a bipartisan group of senior State and Defense officials warned the justices in an amicus brief, Arizona’s law “risk[s] embroiling the national government in disputes not of its making,” forcing the entire nation to live with the consequences of just one rogue state’s actions. Foreign policy decisions should be made by officials elected to govern the entire United States, not just one of fifty states, and so the Supreme Court has historically respected the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration policy.

Significantly, the rule favoring preemption of state immigration law distinguishes immigration from most other areas of law. Neither America’s national security nor its foreign policy is as clearly implicated by laws protecting consumers, workers, children or the elderly, so state laws protecting these groups has not historically been subject to sweeping claims of preemption. In these cases, the courts apply a “presumption against pre-emption,” and seek to preserve state law unless Congress clearly intended otherwise.

In other words, the balance of power between the federal and state governments has been clear for many decades. Just as Arizona is not allowed to declare war on Mexico or negotiate a free trade agreement with China, it also may not set its own immigration policy because foreign policy matters must be decided by the national government. Arizona is free, however, to protect the health, safety and economic prosperity of its citizens by regulating businesses and ensure that all products sold within the state are safe.

Both parts of this balance of power are now threatened by the conservatives on the Roberts Court.

On the domestic front, many of the Court’s conservatives appear eager to simply eliminate the presumption against preemption in favor of a new presumption in favor of wealthy corporations. Thus, several of the Court’s conservatives joined a dissent claiming that the existence of FDA regulation of the drug industry immunized drug companies from a lawsuit brought by a woman who lost her arm and her livelihood to a dangerous drug. And this is hardly the only example of the conservative justices aggressively trying to wipe out state laws protecting ordinary Americans from corporate excesses.

Tomorrow’s case asks the justices to reverse the equally well-established rule against permitting states to set their own immigration laws. If the justices take Arizona up on this request, the consequences will not simply be felt by the thousands of immigrants forced into the shadows by Arizona’s illegal law. It will be felt by all Americans as our nation’s foreign policy suffers, and as the Roberts Court once again shows their disregard for the law.

QUESTIONER: What do you think of labor unions?

KELLY: They’re awful. That’s what I think of labor unions. They are terrible! The problem is not necessarily the labor union, it’s the government taking sides with the labor union.

When asked if he was satisfied that Obama had met those qualifications, Cardon sidestepped the question.

“I haven’t been in the middle of that inspection,” Cardon said. “I’m running my own race right now, not worrying about Obama’s race.”

Cardon is running against Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in the GOP primary for the seat vacated by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who is retiring. Flake is the heavy favorite in the race, though Cardon is still viable. Whoever wins the Republican nomination will likely beat the Democratic nominee in November. Cardon has lent his campaign more than $1 million.

Flake has strongly condemned birthers, saying people who think Obama may not have been born in the U.S. need to “get off this kick” and “accept the reality.”

First, the campaign tried to distance itself from controversial immigration activist Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona and Alabama’s harsh anti-immigration laws. Romney had touted Kobach as an informal adviser, but this week said he was merely a “supporter” not an “adviser.” ThinkProgress and others spoke with Kobach, who disputed the claim and said he was still advising the campaign, but nonetheless Romney’s staff again stood by their initial statement.

But today, a spokesperson agreed in an email to CNN that Kobach is indeed an “informal adviser.”

Secondly, the Romney campaign asserted that when the presumed presidential nominee said during a Republican primary debate that Arizona is “a model,” he was referring to the state’s E-Verify law, not its anti-immigration law, the Kobach-backed SB-1070.

But newly-confirmed immigration adviser Kobach disputed this as well. “He stated very publicly that Arizona’s law should be a model for how the federal government enforces its immigration laws. And he’s correct there too,” Kobach told CNN of SB-1070. Indeed, Romney’s “self-deportation” policy shares the same basic approach as Arizona’s law.

Kobach went on to say that he doesn’t expect Romney — who had the harshest immigration policy of any Republican presidential candidate — to moderate his stances at all when facing President Obama. “I think it would be unusual for a national presidential candidate to back away from statements he’s made in debates and he hasn’t shown any sign of doing so,” Kobach said.

Indeed, it will be very hard for Romney, whose PAC was one of the largest donors to Kobach’s campaign for Kansas Secretary of State, to distance himself from his immigration adviser or the law in Arizona.

Brewer’s veto of the bill, which could have let guns into city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol, was the latest setback for a push to expand the right to carry guns in public places in Arizona. . . .

Citing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in her veto letter, Brewer, who vetoed a similar bill last year, recognized the legitimacy of laws banning guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

“The decisions to permit or prohibit guns in these extremely sensitive locations — whether a city council chamber or branch office staffed with state workers — should be cooperatively reached and supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including citizens, law-enforcement officials and local government leaders,” Brewer wrote in her veto letter.

Brewer’s citation to Scalia might seem counterintuitive, but it is not particularly surprising. As Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment should not be read “to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

Indeed, the fact that even staunch conservatives like Jan Brewer and Antonin Scalia find the gun lobby’s reading of the Second Amendment to be a bridge too far indicates just how radical those groups have become — and how out of touch their supporters in elected office are as well.