PHOENIX — Governor Doug Ducey today signed legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of Arizonans by safeguarding against frivolous lawsuits that have no connection to unlawful use of firearms. The new state law mirrors federal law that was passed on a bipartisan basis.
“With efforts currently underway in Washington to erode Second Amendment rights, Arizona is taking action to protect those rights,” said Governor Ducey. “In Arizona, we’re safeguarding manufacturers, sellers and trade associations. Bad actors need to be held accountable, and we will work to make sure they are. But we’re not going to allow lawsuit after lawsuit to slowly tear down the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in our state. Senate Bill 1382 achieves this goal, and I’m grateful to Representative Quang Nguyen and Senator Wendy Rogers for leading on this important legislation.”
Senate Bill 1382 prohibits the state and all entities of the state from suing a member of the firearms industry for lawful design, marketing, distribution, and sale of firearms and ammunition to the public. The legislation also prohibits a civil action from being brought against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition or related trade association for damages resulting from the criminal misuse of the firearm or ammunition, with exceptions.
Additionally, it protects manufacturers or sellers of firearms and ammunition from civil action for damages resulting from the criminal misuse of the firearm or ammunition, except in specified circumstances.
“Arizona is—and will remain—a strong 2nd Amendment state,” said Judi White of Tucson, a champion of gun rights who has long been active in the NRA. “We can’t let flippant lawsuits hinder operations of firearm or ammunition manufacturers, sellers and trade associations that are following the law. Senate Bill 1382 makes sure of that. Thank you, Governor Ducey, for signing legislation that protects citizens’ Constitutional rights.”
In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which provides federal protection for law-abiding firearms and ammunition industry members against frivolous lawsuits. PLCAA has been challenged in recent years, including in April 2021 when President Biden stated removing PLCAA as a top priority of his administration. Senate Bill 1382 codifies the federal provisions under state law.
Arizona Senator Kelli Ward introduced SB 1156 (HTML | PDF) which would prevent agencies and corporations of The Great State of Arizona from assisting in the metadata collection by the NSA and other agencies.
The Tenth Amendment web site calls it the first in the nation.
Arizona Senator Kelli Ward (Photo AZ Legislature web)
FOURTH AMENDMENT
The Fourth Amendment of the inalienable Bill of Rights provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Supreme Court has so watered down most of the Bill of Rights through decisions based on ideology and not constitutionality that this provision is almost worthless. For example, TSA can violate your person without a warrant based on probable cause by Oath or affirmation by your simple act of buying a ticket for public transportation.
Apparently, however, the “fake” NSA spying scandal has finally pushed Senator Ward too far. The bill would not stop illegal data collection by the NSA and other agencies which has tapped into all forms of communications. It would only prevent the State agencies and corporations dealing with the State from providing any assistance to the federal government. Continue reading →
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—There are currently three bills for new vanity plates working their way through the Senate.
SB 1116 Creates a disabled veteran special plate if $32,000 is paid for its implementation to ADOT by December 31, 2013.
SB 1343 Creates a Girls’ Youth Organization special plate (GYO plate) if $32,000 is paid for its implementation to ADOT by December 31, 2013
SB 2025 Creates a Fallen Hero special plate if $32,000 is paid for its implementation to ADOT by December 31, 2013.
If Democrat Steve Farley has his way, they will take a new shape. In response to complaints that officers complaining about the difficulty seeing the letters, the Senator has introduced SB 1206. The bill would change 24-2405 to read:
A special plate issued pursuant to this article shall have a standard design with one area on the plate that is a three inch square that is set aside for a logo or message. The department shall determine the standard design of the special plate, and the logo or message is subject to the approval of the department. This section applies to all special plates that are authorized pursuant to this article after the effective date of this section.
The Senator has also introduced SB 1198 which is aimed at preventing obscuring the readablity of license plates with coatings or electronic means. The Bill would add Paragraph D to ARS 28-2354 reading:
Unless authorized by the department, a person shall not apply a covering or any substance to the license plate or use an electronic device or electrochromatic film that obscures from any angle the numbers, characters, year validating tabs or name of the jurisdiction issuing the plate.
While there is a penalty for covering up the name of the State on a license plate, the bill does not appear to provide a penalty for violating the proposed provision.
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.”
Who hasn’t wished they were or played cowboy as a kid? The cowboy has always been a fixture in the collective memory of Americans. Cowboys have actually existed in several countries, but the American cowboy through movies continues to be the image that sparks the imagination. Many small communities, such as Williams, has a cowboy show that attracts tourists from around the world. Now you will be able to release that fantasy one day this year.
Arizona Senate Resolution 1006 voted on unanimously supports National Day of the Cowboy on Saturday July 28th.
The resolution recognizes the pioneering and patriotic spirit of the cowboy. The Cowboy, the resolution states, embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion and determination.
Rodeos draw 30,000,000 fans from around the world. The first is said to have been held in Prescott, Arizona in 1888 when a group of cowboys got together to display their talents.
PHOENIX—Governor Jan Brewer, whose finger-wag was seen ’round the world, vetoed Arizona H.B. 2434 which would have required federal law enforcement officials to report to the County Sheriff prior to taking any law enforcement action.
In her April 11th letter, she informed House Speaker Andy Tobin of her concerns with interference with federal agencies.
“This legislation has the potential to interfere with law enforcement investigations and adds unneeded reporting requirements for law enforcement. Rather than hinder the efforts of our federal law enforcement colleagues, we need to focus on collaboration,” she wrote.
She noted that the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Center gathers local, state and federal law enforcement to jointly fight against terrorism and other serious crimes. Apparently that does not include securing the southern border.
The Governor also vetoed House Joint Resolution 2001 “Authorizing opposition to the use of an international force on american soil that seeks to enforce any united Nations treaty that has not been ratified by the United States senate.”
The resolution reads:
Whereas, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution firmly states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; and
Whereas, Article II, section 26, Arizona Constitution, states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired”; and
Whereas, member nations of the United Nations have formed committees with the intent to regulate private firearm ownership; and
Whereas, the United Nations committees have held hearings on the Arms Trade Treaty, which includes regulation of private firearms ownership; and
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States prevents the President from enacting a treaty without ratification from the United States Senate; and
Whereas, the National Rifle Association has secured the commitment from 58 current United States senators that they would not ratify the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty as long as it includes regulation of private firearms ownership; and
Whereas, the United Nations Security Council regularly shows its disregard for sovereign nations and their constitutions and laws; and
Whereas, the United Nations has used force to disarm citizens of a sovereign nation in the past, which led to mass killings by bladed weapons; and
Whereas, the United Nations often uses international forces to impose its will on sovereign nations.
Therefore
Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
1. That the State of Arizona opposes any use of an international force on American soil that seeks to enforce any United Nations treaty that has not been properly ratified by the United States Senate.
2. That the State of Arizona authorizes using organized resistance to thwart any international force that infringes on the United States Constitution or any of its amendments.
PHOENIX—The Border Security, Federalism and States’ Soveriegnty committee will meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday where Senator Sylvia Allen is expected to submit a strike all amendment to S.B. 1083 to form the Arizona State Guard. The amendment would strike the original S.B. 1083 and create, instead, an Arizona Special Missions Unit.
The Arizona Special Missions Unit would be formed by adding a Chapter 20 to Title 41 of the Arizona Revised Statute entitled State Government. The original bill mixed the Arizona State Guard within Title 26, Military Affairs and Emergency Management.
Because of some technical confusion pointed out by Major General Salazar of the National Guard and concerns of confusion by law enforcement by one of the other Senators, Senator Sylvia Allen changed the bill to ensure a clear separation between the State organization and the National Guard. It also makes clear that they may not act without local law enforcement request.
In an email, Senator Allen wrote, “We must have the ability to organize a highly train special unit who could help with cross border criminal activity. This is a cross between State Guard/Arizona Ranger.”
The missions of the unit and funding are essentially the same, but several key elements make it more like a true militia than the S.B. 1083 bill. Continue reading →
S.B. 1083 to establish the Arizona State Guard received six yes votes, one no and one not voting. Major General Salazar, Adjutant General of the National Guard, expressed some concerns about the wording in the Arizona Constitution which might make the Arizona State Guard under the National Guard. The Arizona State Guard when called by the governor would, in effect, be a militia and thus subject to National Guard. Senator Sylvia Allen noted that there is was an effort to write the language so that it is clear that they are two separate entities and the Arizona State Guard would be under Arizona State control. Another point General Salazar made was whether or not federal agencies would welcome State Guard personnel in their areas of operation. He was unclear what coordination could be conducted.
He did clarify that he was not objecting the the legislation but pointing out areas of the legislation and Arizona Constitution that might cause contention. At one point he joked, “I’m not taking this personally.”
One concern expressed was basically giving a gun to untrained people and sending them to the border. In previous testimony, however, it was made clear that they would be trained before they were sent into areas of operation. One Senator with previous military experience balked at the notion giving several examples of where the Army trained various groups around the world in a short amount of time to fight.
SCR 1008 and S.B. 1081 giving counties the ability to declare emergencies in the forested areas to clean out fire fuels also passed, both with a vote of 6 yes and two not voting.
