PHOENIX — On Tuesday, Governor Doug Ducey vetoed H.B. 2592 which would have required a candidate for Justice of the Peace to be a resident of the precinct they are to represent at the time they file papers and would have to have been a resident for one-year at the time of the general election date.
The exception would have been a justice of the peace who had been appointed. A.R.S. § 16-230 allows the governor to fill vacancies in the Justice of the Peace office with a person of the same party.
The Governor stated in his veto letter:
I do not believe it is appropriate to create a separate residency standard for one specific elected office.
The Governor also vetoed S.B. 1171 concerning filing of late campaign reports. The bill would have required that the specific amount of daily late penalties and how and when daily late penalties start and stop accruing be added to notices sent to campaigns who file late campaign reports.
Governor Ducey said in his veto letter that this matter could be handled administratively in the office of the Secretary of State.
According to current law, all penalties for late filing must be paid prior to filing the late report.
Contact House Leadership!
Commentary by Arizona Citizens Defense League
PHOENIX — The House Leadership has sidelined two AzCDL-requested bills, HB 2320 and HB 2431. If they cannot meet the March 20 deadline to be heard in Senate committees, they are effectively dead for the session.
HB 2320, which would exempt CCW permit holders from being disarmed when entering state and local government property unless every person entering is screened for weapons, only needs a Third Read floor vote to proceed to the Senate.
HB 2431, which would establish an interstate compact that restricts member states from enacting firearms transfer requirements greater than existing federal law, needs both a House Committee of the Whole (COW) hearing, currently scheduled for March 9, and a Third Read vote to proceed.
It’s time to urge the House Leadership to schedule HB 2320 and HB 2431 for Third Read votes before it’s too late.
PHOENIX — Daylight savings time will begin tomorrow. Across the country clocks will “spring ahead” one hour.
Except in Arizona.
For years, Arizona has enjoyed the luxury of not having to reset their clocks. They may, however, have to reset the recording times on their VCR (if you know what those are) to ensure they can capture the latest Lady Gaga performance.
This distressing situation may change, however, if Republican Phil Lovas has his way.
Arizona legislature Phil Lovas (R-22) has introduced HB 2014 to make Arizona compliant with daylight savings time. He is joined by John Allen (R-15) and Paul Boyer (R-20).
HB 2014 would amend Section 1-242 of the Arizona Revised Statute to make Arizona residents change their clocks with the rest of the nation. The bill even deletes section D. of the current statute which reads:
The rejection of daylight saving time as provided for in this section may be changed by future legislative action.
Presumably this is intended to ensure that no one has to change their recording times so that they can always and forever catch the latest escapades of the Kardashians.
Fortunately there appears to have been no movement on this bill of Kawliforna influence.
EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic apparently has a problem with Arizona HB 2284. This bill would allow the Director of the Department of Health Services to inspect, or send a duly designated agent, to inspect abortion clinics if there is “reasonable cause” to believe they are violating the law or rules concerning abortion.
His argument is that they have this authority already if they obtain a warrant.
Mr. Montini does not seem to have a problem with warrantless searches of restaurants by county health departments. Especially to make sure they are adhering to an unconstitutional law against allowing smoking in their business.
I do not know if he has a problem with Obamacare guidelines which allow warrantless inspections of homes of “at risk” families. These include Veterans who have honorably served our country, homes with pregnant women under the age of 21, homes of student that have children with low student achievement, homes of tobacco users, families with substance abuse problems, and so-forth.
I do not know how you determine a student of low achievement since common core curriculum does not require you to get the right answer, but whatever…
This provision is not unusual. ARS 36-463.02 allows inspections of clinical laboratories. Although 36-495.07 does limit inspections of environmental laboratories to an annual occurrence, no warrant is required. ARS 36-855 allows the warrantless inspection of child care facilities by local or State health departments. We have mine inspectors and even a guy to run around and check railroad crossing signals. We can send police to find out why kids are not in school without a warrant.
The point is that any organization licensed to do business affecting the health and safety of the public, in some fashion, agreeing to warrantless inspections on the city, county or State level. It is rather difficult to understand why abortion clinics should be exempt.
The legislative session began on the 13th and all bills must be submitted by February 10th. The Arizona Citizens Defense League has compiled a listing of gun bills currently in the legislative process.
Many are simply technical corrections to the language of the law.
HB 2103 would amend ARS 13-3112 to allow current military and veterans from age 19 on to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Arizona.
It changes section E. 1. to read, “2. Is twenty‑one years of age or older or is at least nineteen years of age and provides evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces, United States armed forces reserve or a state national guard.”
The bill is introduced by Representatives Townsend, Borrelli, Kwasman, Livingston, Mitchell, Petersen, Seel, Smith, Thorpe: Barton, Cardenas, Lovas, Shope
HB 2127—introduced by Representatives Pratt, Gowan, Shope and Senators Griffin, Pierce and McGuire—after some technical corrections would eliminate Section D. which would eliminate the restriction of game guides to a revolver or pistol. This would allow them to carry long guns.
HB 2132 was submitted by Representative Quezada would allow persons to automatically be restored the right to vote after the end of their probation or their absolute discharge from prison. Filing for the restoration of the right to bear arms does not change.
HB 2133 would amend Title 38 adding 38-202. This would require anyone applying for a peace officer position to provide proof of United States citizenship and would prevent a public officer from providing an application for that position to anyone who cannot prove United States citizenship.
This is obviously meant to prevent past discrepancies such as the Carmen Figueroa case. She did not realize that she was an illegal alien and may not have been required to carry a firearm. This is probably why she slipped through the system. Most people, however, are required to prove citizenship to purchase a firearm through the federal system.
SB1063 would require any public establishment or even to provide sutiable, secure storage facilities in compliance with 13-3102.01 if they do not allow firearms into their facility or event. This technical correction would allow gun owners to ignore the warning placards if the facility does not provide secure storage.
Under the expanding gas language in ARS 13-105.19, an air-operated pistol or rifle can be considered a firearm. This differs with ARS 13-3101.4, which uses action of an explosive to define a firearm. By having two definitions, law enforcement can cherry-pick the statute they want to apply.
PHOENIX—Republican representative Thomas Forese has introduced two pieces of legislation aimed at metal theft.
HB 2261 would amend the criminal code of the ARS 13-1820 concerning the theft of metals. A person would commit metal theft if “without lawful authority” the person knowingly:
1. Controls ferrous metal or nonferrous metal that is the property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of the metal.
2. Obtains ferrous metal or nonferrous metal that is the property of another by means of any material misrepresentation with intent to deprive the other person of the metal.
3. Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered ferrous metal or nonferrous metal that is the property of another under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates the metal to the person’s own or another’s use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner.
4. Controls ferrous metal or nonferrous metal that is the property of another knowing that the metal was stolen.
5. Unless acquired in the ordinary course of business by an automotive recycler or a scrap metal dealer, the inferences listed in section 13‑2305 apply to any prosecution under subsection A, paragraph 4 of this section.
Ferrous metal is defined as metals that will attract a metal while non-ferrous metal will not.
For the purposes of prosecution, the value of the metal would include the damage to the property from which the metal was stolen which occurs during the theft.
As an additional means of combating metal theft, the Legislator has also introduced HB 2262 which would amend sections of ARS Title 44 relating to the licensing and record keeping of scrap dealers in Arizona.
Currently scrap dealers are required to register with the Department of Public Safety and keep records of any transactions they make in metals exceeding $25. The new law would require them to keep records of all transactions.
It would also add certain records that scrap dealers must keep. It would also allow cities and counties to add regulations aimed at recovering the cost of enforcing this law.
DPS would also be required to submit a report every two years to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House identifying all scrap dealers in the State of Arizona. All law enforcement officer in the state to register with a free web site that would send detailed descriptions of stolen items to scrap metal dealers and other law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the theft.
PHOENIX—There are four bills originating in the legislature of the Great State of Arizona from both sides of the aisle to benefit veterans in the State. Benefits would be in the area of employment, taxes, and lower hunting and fishing license fees.
Republican freshman Bob Thorpe of District 6 has introduced two bills. HB 2470(PDF) would create a Hiring Our Heroes award. He has also offered HB 2468(PDF) which would reduce hunting and fishing license fees for veterans.
HB 2470 would add 41-610 to Title 41, Article 7 (Department of Veterans’ Services) of the Arizona Revised Statute to read:
The department [of Veterans Affairs] shall develop and implement a hiring our heroes award to recognize Arizona businesses that provide job opportunities to veterans. The department shall hold an annual awards dinner to recognize Arizona businesses that have demonstrated a commitment to our returning soldiers. The department shall give the winning business a commendation, post the commendation on the department’s website and issue a press release praising the business.
HB 2468 would amend Title 17 of the Game and Fish laws to allow Game and Fish to offer reduced fees to veterans for fishing and hunting licenses. The Bill would amend 17-336 to allow the Game and Fish to reduced fees to honorably discharged veterans based on the number of years served. They would be able to reduce the fees by ten-percent for every four years of the veteran’s service in the military. This would also apply to members who served in the National Guard or a reserve component of the United States military. Those members would have to have been in Arizona for at least one-year prior to their application for the license.
Active duty military in the Great State of Arizona for thirty-days can purchase a residence license for hunting and fishing. The bill would allow them to apply for the same discount fees as the veterans above.
Justin Pierce, Republican from District , has introduced HB 2391 (PDF) which would amend to 43-1022 of the Arizona Revised Statue paragraph 38 which reads:
The full amount received as retired or retainer pay of the uniformed services of the United States by a taxpayer who is an honorably discharged veteran.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, Representative Mark Cardenas from District 19 proposes HB 2484(PDF) which has both Democrat and Republican cosponsors. The bill amends Title 38 and 43 of the A.R.S. concerning tax credits for hiring veterans.
HB 2484 would allow a tax credit for businesses who hire veterans (as defined in 41-601) for tax years from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2015. The amount of the tax credit would be the lowest of the following:
(1) 10-percent of the salary earned and paid to the employee during the taxable year.
(2) Two-thousand dollars per employee.
(3) Four-thousand dollars for veterans who were honorably separated and has a service-connected disability or is receiving compensation or disability retirement benefits under the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs or the armed services.
People who have a partnership in businesses that hire veterans could receive benefits based on their percentage of ownership.
Republicans in the Arizona legislature are submitting several bills aimed at protecting the rights of the citizens of Arizona. In their zeal of patriotism, however, two bills have been submitted concerning patriotic oaths that are causing concern.
Although one might question why one would be reluctant to take a patriotic oath of allegiance to the country, they may violate the First Amendment right of the individual. If they were to pass and somehow merit the signature of the governor, they would almost certainly wind up in the courts.
HB 2284, sponsored by Representative Steve Smith would require schools in grades one to twelve to set aside a specific time during the day in which students would be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance unless their parents specifically request the pupil be excused.
According to AZCentral, Representative Smith said he introduced the legislation in response to a Maricopa high-school student who last year reported feeling mocked and embarrassed after she was the only one in her class to stand and say the pledge.
Making time for students who want to voluntarily say the Pledge should not pose a problem, but forcing them is raising First Amendment concerns.
Another bill raising constitutional eyebrows is sponsored by freshman Representative Bob Thorpe. HB 2467, would require students to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution similar to those required by public officials. In addition to passing the required course of instruction, the principle or head teacher of a school would have to certify in writing that the student performed the following oath:
I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
Representative Thorpe said that the intent was to inspire the students to further study the Constitution. He said, however, that he intends to change the wording of the bill to make it voluntary.
“Both bills are clearly unconstitutional, ironically enough,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham in the AZCentral article. “You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”
Open primaries may drive Legislature to special session
PHOENIX—The media is a-buzz with the initiative filed by Jack Biltis—with more than 320,000 signatures—which would allow Arizona citizens to, “to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution.” This initiative comes on the heels of a referendum from the Legislature where we may see Arizona voters proclaim, “SOVEREIGN AND EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OVER THE AIR, WATER, PUBLIC LANDS, MINERALS, WILDLIFE AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES”
According to the Arizona Daily Sun, the measure submitted by Jack Biltis is not just in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the takeover of the health care industry by the Obama administration, but the Bush PATRIOT act, as well.
“The only portion of government that has unlimited powers are the state governments and the people themselves,” Biltis is quoted as saying.
A referendum that was submitted to the Secretary of State by Republican members of the House and Senate is now Proposition 120. The bill is a response to Governor Jan Brewer vetoing several State sovereignty bills. Continue reading →
Phoenix—While Arizona may win its battle over the watered-down SB 1070 due to the efforts of Governor Jan Brewer, the governor vetoed several other measures which the Legislature passed to enforce State sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Among those were measures to prevent State agencies from enforcing provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, a measure supporting county Sheriffs, and objections to international forces on American soil.
Vetoed by the governor was SCR 1008 and SB 1081 which would have given authority to the State and counties to declare emergencies in the forests and take action to clean them up. The governor recently signed the Four Forest Restoration contract with the “National Forest Service.” A main problem with this contract is that any money taken in from the resources leave Arizona.
The governor vetoed Senate Bill 1332 to demand that the federal government extinguish title to all public lands in the State relinquishing title to Arizona. In her veto letter she stated that the bill, “…appears to be in conflict with Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 and Article VI, Clause 2, as well as the Enabling Act.”
The first article mentioned is one that the federal government uses in their arguments.
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
While a Territory, it was constitutionally legitimate to form a “forest service.” With the Enabling Act mentioned—which allowed Arizona to form a Constitution—and the signing of that Constitution by William Howard Taft, Arizona is no longer a territory and this provision no longer applies.
The Constitution of the United States allows for certain properties for the federal government “To establish Post Offices and post roads” (I, Sect. 8, Clause 7), and the Seat of Government (3) and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature (4) for the Erection of Forts, (5) Magazines, (6) Arsenals, (7) dock-Yards, and (8) other needful Buildings (Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 17). None of these purposes gives Congress the right to form a National Forest Service, National Parks Service or other Bureaus to control lands within a State. The exception is waterways to ensure they are navigable. The federal government also argues Fifth Amendment authority to confiscate public and private land at will, but the Fifth Amendment was only meant to allow them to take land for their limited, allotted purposes. Article VI, Clause 2 is the so-called “Supremacy Clause.” This clause was only meant to give the federal government authority over those areas they were specifically given authority over by the Constitution of the United States. The wording of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights was meant to make that very clear.
Also in Article IV of the Constitution is a provision that gives the federal government the specific duty to protect the State from invasion. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 and Title 32 §109 of the United States Code gives Arizona the authority to establish a defense force for the purposes of protecting Arizona citizens from invasion. Despite the claim of PBS, the Mexican drug cartels are known to be working with Hezbollah and Fox News has reported concerns by the Department of Homeland Security that they may be working with the terrorist group al-Qaeda. SB-1083 originally would have set up an Arizona Defense Force. A choir of Arizona media led by Senator Steve Gallardo (D-13) accused Arizona of setting up a “vigilante” group displaying their apparent ignorance to the definition of a vigilante group. One television media outlet said that the bill would hand guns out to untrained citizens and send them to the border. They did not mention the training, psychological testing, vetting process and command structure written into the bill. The bill was later changed by the author, Senator Sylvia Allen (R-5), in response to the concerns to create an Arizona Special Missions Unit. The governor did not have a chance to veto this bill which was killed in committee by House Speaker Andy Tobin.
Governor vetoed SB 1182 which would have prevented the State and any State agency from providing material support in implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act. Despite the assurances by Representative Allen West of Florida, many groups advocate that these sections do not exempt American citizens from being apprehended by the military as “terrorists” without trial and being held indefinitely.
In an e-mail, Senator Allen wrote that the governor, “…said it was wrong to force law enforcement to have to decide rather to enforce state law over federal law. She was more worried about law enforcement than the citizens of this state who longer have due process under the Constitution, which by the way, law enforcement took an oath to uphold. The Governor was wrong on this one.”
The governor also vetoed HB 2434 which would have required federal law enforcement officers to notify the Sheriff of a county before conducting operations within their county. In the veto letter by the governor she wrote, “Rather than hinder the efforts of our federal law enforcement colleagues, we need to focus on collaboration. For example, the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Center brings together local, state and federal law enforcement to jointly fight against terrorism and other serious crimes.” Apparently this does not consist of preventing terrorists from entering the country.
Recent news reports are that Russian troops are training in Colorado at the Denver Airport to fight terrorists (See Right-wing Extremist document). HJR 2001, proposed by Representative Harper (R-4) and Senator Gould (R-3) was written prior to that knowledge and opposes the use of international force in America to enforce unratified treaties and authorizes resistance against any international force infringing on the United States Constitution. The governor said, “Many terms are undefined or ill-defined which leaves this measure vulnerable to misuse, confusion and unintended consequences.”
The Resolution only shows Legislative support for the Constitutional right of American citizens to resist foreign invasion as granted by Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 aforementioned, and the Second Amendment (See Federalist Paper No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 25 & 29 ) the Ninth and Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Justice Noah Haynes Swayne in the Cherokee Tobacco Case (78 u.s. 616, 20 L.Ed. 227, 11 Wall. 616 (1870)) wrote, “It need hardly be said that a treaty. cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” That sentiment was upheld by Justice Horace Gray who authored the decision in UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (March 28, 1898), “…as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties, and decisions upon that subject, always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by congress, as well as treaties made by the president and senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the constitution.”
In 1913, Elihu Root published his lecture Essentials of the Constitution in which he wrote, “The constitution provides that ‘This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.’ Under this provision an enactment by Congress not made in pursuance of the constitution, or an enactment of a state contrary to the constitution, is not a law. Such an enactment should strictly have no more legal effect than the resolution of any private debating society.”
PHOENIX — On Tuesday, Governor Doug Ducey vetoed H.B. 2592 which would have required a candidate for Justice of the Peace to be a resident of the precinct they are to represent at the time they file papers and would have to have been a resident for one-year at the time of the general election date. 
