On Thursday, as the Biden administration hints at increased restrictions on Second Amendment rights, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith introduced the GRIP Act. The Act would prohibit states, localities, or any other organization from using federal funding to maintain gun registries.
There are 41 original cosponsors of the House measure including Rep. Andy Biggs and Rep. David Schweikert.
The GRIP Act (Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act) would, according to Gosar, clarify existing law that prohibits the use of any federal funding by states or local entities to store or list sensitive, personal information related to the legal ownership or possession of firearms.
The legislation is in response to states that in recent years enacted statutes requiring gun owners to register their handguns.
Current law prevents the federal government from storing information acquired during the firearms background process. The GRIP Act would ensure the federal government does not support, either intentionally or otherwise, state or local efforts to collect and store personally identifiable information related to legal firearm purchases and ownership.
This legislation further clarifies that states and local entities cannot use federal grant funds from programs, such as the National Criminal Histories Improvement Program, NICS Amendment Records Improvement Program, or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, to create or maintain full or partial gun registries.
The measure does not include any limitations related to state recordkeeping for permitting, law enforcement-issued firearms, or lost or stolen firearms.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the bill.
“On behalf of our more than 5 million members, the National Rifle Association thanks Senator Hyde-Smith and Congressman Gosar for introducing this important piece of legislation to prevent the use of federal funds to create a national gun owner registry. Biden-Pelosi-Schumer and their gun control cohorts have longed for the disarming of America, and a national gun registry is a dangerous step towards reaching that goal,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
PHOENIX – A group of Arizona legislators penned a letter to Governor Doug Ducey urging him to make people in the Arizona Long Term Care System a priority when it comes to to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
In the letter, the group of lawmakers came together in bipartisan fashion to praise Ducey and his team for their “demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process.”
Dear Governor Ducey,
We want to start by thanking you for your leadership in getting the COVID-19 vaccine in the arms of Arizonans. While it has not been perfect, your team has demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process to ensure Arizonans are vaccinated as quickly as possible. In fact, news reports recently stated that Arizona’s vaccine distribution grade went from a “C” last month to an “A” this month according to a report card by Harvard researchers. Under your leadership and in conjunction with our county partners, 1,442,915 Arizonans have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 828,315 Arizonans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that a recent change to the vaccine prioritization has resulted in further delaying one of the most vulnerable populations from receiving the vaccine. Now that the prioritization approach determines eligibility based on age or essential worker status, those who are part of the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) that reside at home who may not be eligible based on their age are forced to the end of the line. Considering these individuals are at a higher risk of contracting and getting sick from COVID-19, we respectfully ask you to consider strategies to get these individuals vaccinated as quickly as possible so they can resume their lives and reinstate social connectedness without fear of contracting the virus. These people, as we feel you understand have a high need for person to person contact as in one of your executive orders maintained that public school districts had to maintain an onsite educational opportunity for these individuals during the pandemic.
We understand there have been many challenges throughout this public health emergency, and yet you have demonstrated compassion for the most vulnerable. We also understand this issue is likely an oversight that can be easily addressed. This group of individuals were scheduled for 1C in vaccinations and right before there opportunity the change in eligibility by age moved them to the bottom. We ask you to please consider our request to address this and let us know how we can be of any assistance in doing so.
Respectfully,
Representative David Cook, Legislative District 8
Representative Brenda Barton, Legislative District 6
Representative Kevin Payne, Legislative District 21
Representative Mark Finchem, Legislative District 11
Representative Joel John, Representative, District 4
Representative Beverly Pingerelli, Legislative District 21
Representative Cesar Chavez, Legislative District 29
Representative Domingo DeGrazia, Legislative District 10
Representative Jennifer Longdon, Legislative District 24
Representative Quang Nguyen, Legislative District 1
Representative Justin Wilmeth, Legislative District 15
Representative Amish Shah, Legislative District 24
Representative Diego Rodriguez, Legislative District 27
PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has amended its February 3rd lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its immigration policy that halts nearly all deportations for 100 days, even for those charged with or convicted of crimes.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has also joined the Arizona lawsuit on behalf of the State of Montana. Arizona and Montana also filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to stop the DHS policies from being implemented.
The original complaint challenged the DHS Memorandum issued on the first day of the Biden Administration, called the “immediate 100-day Pause on Removals.” In addition to the DHS policy, Arizona and Montana are also now challenging the “Interim Guidance” issued by the Acting Director of ICE on February 18, 2021, which tries to supersede the original Memorandum but does not substantively change the policy to pause nearly all deportations of those who entered the country before November 1, 2020.
The amended complaint alleges that the original Memorandum and the Interim Guidance were promulgated without providing notice to Arizona and Montana, in violation of each State’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DHS. Additionally, both policies are in direct violation of federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, that requires an alien, who has received a final deportation order, to be removed from the United States within 90 days.
The DHS Memorandum states it is to be in effect for 100 days, and the Interim Guidance states it is to be in effect for 90 days, but no apparent limiting factor is explained. If this action is permitted to stand, DHS could implement these polices for a longer period or even indefinitely, thus allowing the current Administration to unilaterally amend immigration laws without the required congressional action.
Law enforcement officials also are telling the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) that DHS is releasing undocumented aliens without testing them for COVID-19. Many are worried hospitals and medical centers, which have been operating at or near full-capacity due to the pandemic, could be overwhelmed. Possibly even more disturbing, the AGO has learned DHS is releasing potentially dangerous individuals without any coordination with local law enforcement.
The preliminary injunction notes that DHS did not engage in any prior consultation with anyone—inside or outside the federal government—about the anticipated effects and costs of the Removal Moratorium, including the number of aliens with final removal orders who will be released from ICE custody and the detrimental impacts on public safety, health, and state and local finances from such releases. Further, DHS made no attempt to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedures in issuing the Memorandum/Removal Moratorium.
The motion includes declarations from Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, Cochise County Sheriff’s Office Chief of Staff Mark Napier, President for the Yuma Medical Center Dr. Robert Trenschel, and Administrator of the Division of Criminal Investigation at the Montana Department of Justice Bryan Lockerby. These declarations illustrate the harms Arizona and Montana will suffer under the new DHS policies, including unreimbursed costs related to incarceration and healthcare costs.
It’s not every day that an innovative tax reform proposal also results in exposing one of the biggest political lies of the year. Yet that is exactly what has happened with the introduction of Senate Bill 1783, legislation introduced by State Senator Javan Mesnard.
Geared toward promoting small business growth and investment, SB 1783 would establish an optional, alternative small business tax code in Arizona. Under this proposal, policymakers would be able to craft and develop a tax code tailored specifically for small business owners, with an eye at setting competitive, pro-small business tax rates.
Exploring tax reform geared toward small business makes a lot of sense, especially since Arizona recently joined the ranks of other uncompetitive high tax states. Arizona currently has the 9th highest small business income tax rate, 11th highest state sales tax and 20th highest business property tax in the nation.
PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General has joined a coalition of 12 states in filing a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration over a massive expansion of federal regulations through executive order.
The lawsuit challenges President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, titled “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” The states allege that the Biden Administration did not have the authority to issue binding numbers for the social costs of greenhouse gases to be used in federal regulations, and that the potential stringency of federal regulations that could come from this executive order will stifle manufacturing, harm agriculture, and have serious economic impacts across the country.
Two industries that will be impacted by President Biden’s executive order are manufacturing and agriculture. According to the Arizona Department of Agriculture, the agriculture industry provides $23.3 billion to Arizona’s economy, resulting in 138,000 jobs. Manufacturing is also a key sector and an economic driver in Arizona. In 2019, manufacturers in Arizona produced approximately $31 billion worth of economic output – accounting for 8.4% of the state’s total GDP, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Additionally, the industry has seen strong job growth. As of 2019, there were 177,300 manufacturing jobs in Arizona.
The lawsuit notes that the President’s interagency working group place the social cost of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide at approximately $9.5 trillion; $269 billion for carbon dioxide, $990 billion for methane, and $8.24 trillion for nitrous oxide (assuming similar rates of emission between 2019 and 2020 in the United States, and a discount rate of 3%).
The states argue in the lawsuit that using these interim values could massively expand the scope and reach of the regulatory power of the federal government, potentially impacting the United States’ economy and every household in America.
In arguing that President Biden’s administration did not have the authority to enact this executive order and that this action should be taken by Congress, the lawsuit points to several reasons, including that the executive order did not have statutory authorization to create the working group, nor did the working group have statutory authority to set values for the social costs of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide that “shall be used by regulatory agencies administering statutes pursuant to statutory delegation of authority enacted by congress.”
Further, the lawsuit states that dictating binding values for the social costs of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane is a legislative action “that the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress through the vesting clause of Article I, § 1 of the Constitution.” The President’s exercise of this legislative authority thus violates the separation of powers, the most fundamental bulwark of liberty.
The lawsuit also alleges that the working group violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit points to the fact that there was no public notice or opportunity for public comment before publishing interim estimates, and that the proper weight was not given to the positive benefits of “affordable and reliable domestic energy and agricultural production.”
In addition to Arizona, state attorneys general from Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah joined the suit.
