Arizona enjoys the benefit of lots and lots of new laws — 191 to be specific — that went into effect Oct. 1. Have you noticed the difference they’ve made?

I’m not going to review all 191 of them, but five of them caught my eye as inviting unexpected consequences.

Now, you can expect holders of concealed carry gun permits might be packing heat in your bar or restaurant. But they can’t drink booze. That’s your only tip off. Anyone can now leave his or her gun in the car, which may increase car break-ins. And anyone can “display” a gun lawfully. There might have been a time this would be called “brandishing.” The idea of the new law is to discourage potential attackers so gunfire does not ensue. Arizona sure has different laws than many other states. Viva la différence!

Print this story Email this story Post a Comment ADVERTISEMENT

A dog or cat picked up by officials for wandering without a license, will be neutered before being returned. This law does not apply to your teenager.

You wonder where all the new doctors will be coming from if ObamaCare passes? Pharmacists are now authorized to administer some vaccines without a prescription. It’s just a short step to allowing pharmacists to do superficial surgery, optometrists to extract cataracts, and podiatrists to work on hands. They’re just like feet, aren’t they?

A special fund has been established to reimburse people defrauded by loan originators. Doesn’t anybody have to accept the results of his gullibility any more? Does everyone’s loss have to fall on the entire community? That fund will prove inadequate. Just wait and see. They always do.

And last, but not least, my very favorite: the dating violence act. Under the rubric of “domestic violence” we already had special provisions for victims whose relationship was clear: marriage or former marriage, residing now or formerly in the same household, having a child or pregnancy in common, related by blood as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, and a few others.

But this new law extends the special protection to people who are just dating. Since there is no ceremony to mark the advent of dating, and such couples need not register their relationship, how do you define who is dating so intensely as to invoke the protection of the act?

The legislature expressed it this way: The relationship is or was “a romantic or sexual relationship” considering the following: the type of relationship, length, frequency of the interaction between the parties, how long terminated if terminated. Is it possible to have a romantic but non-sexual relationship?

That is a very squishy set of criteria to determine if the accused is covered as a dating relationship or is more of a casual acquaintance. I can picture judges squirming as they have to probe the intensity of the relationship, or as the law so coyly puts it, “the frequency of the interaction,” which can only be legispeak for how often did they have sex? What kind of sex? Were the parties both satisfied? Was he willing to cuddle afterwards, or just get on his motorcycle and ride off into the night?

That is bound to make those hearings more interesting. But unless the parties are celebrities, I doubt that Perez Hilton will be in attendance.

The difference is, if the parties are in a covered relationship, the aggrieved party (almost always the woman) can get a protective order on application. If they are not in a protected relationship, she must go to court and seek an injunction which is not so easy to get.

The criteria set forth by the legislature do not provide very good guidelines. They will just have to arise out of case law. I could pose a number of situations that would be ambiguous and the parties would not know if their relationship was protected or not until a court ruled on it.

For example, a guy is in a bar, he meets the love of his life, or the love of his evening. They proceed to the back seat of his car where what happens next may determine whether they have formed a protected relationship. Don’t you think at that very point, someone should advise them of their rights? It’s only fair. When he threatens to beat her up if she blabs about this to his wife, is she entitled to a protective order?

I can picture some court a few months hence probing the “frequency of the interaction between the victim and the defendant.” Maybe the City of Tucson could show the hearings on its cable channel. It would be boffo.

Contact Lionel Waxman at territorial@waxmanmedia.com or visit his website: www.newflashpoint.com.