Undercover video revealed that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs’ campaign travels with an AR-15 firearm in the car for protection, contradicting Hobbs’ long-held desire to ban assault weapons.
Hobbs’ head consultant, Joseph Wolf, told an undercover Project Veritas reporter that they traveled with an AR-15 because it was “easier to fire than a handgun.” In a separate clip, Wolf stated that Hobbs would do everything in her power to issue an assault weapons ban.
“There’s nothing she could do about it, at least immediately, right? Except advocating for it publicly, which is really more impactful once you’re governor,” said Wolf. “This state is unfortunately crazy in love with their guns.”
Other undercover videos obtained by Project Veritas showed that grassroots activists assisting with Hobbs’ campaign were troubled by her, especially her refusal to debate Republican opponent Kari Lake. Field organizer Jasper Adams with Mission For Arizona, which is a group funded by the Arizona Democratic Party, disclosed that they had “a lot of concerns” about Hobbs’ campaign.
Adams disclosed further that his group wasn’t privy to the reason behind Hobbs’ refusal to debate Lake. He explained that even Hobbs’ communications director, who he described as freshly hired and not prepared, didn’t know why Hobbs wouldn’t debate Lake. The closest thing to an answer Adams received: the Hobbs campaign wouldn’t need a debate because they wouldn’t lose Democratic voters, and only Democratic voters care about a debate.
“They basically said only Democrats care about debates and it’s not going to change anything,” said Adams. “Either it wouldn’t persuade people one way or the other or it wouldn’t help her.”
Hobbs has long supported a ban on assault weapons, which gun control advocates usually mean to include AR-15s.
We must refuse to accept that nothing can be done about gun violence. Renew the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire for starters. https://t.co/b2eKtdSsLL
While minority leader for the state senate in 2018, Hobbs lamented to Arizona PBSthat the state legislature wasn’t going to ban assault weapons.
“Unfortunately, it’s been business as usual,” said Hobbs. “There seems to be no push to do anything different than we have, and that’s to ignore bills we have put forward that would bring about common sense solutions to end gun violence.”
I literally quoted a list of all the shootings committed w/AR15’s.
Hobbs supports “common-sense gun reform” proposed by groups like Everytown. Their suggested policies include the prohibition of assault weapons, which they classified as high-powered semiautomatic firearms, or AR-15s. (Note: the “AR” in “AR-15” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle,” it stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” after the company that developed it originally in the 1950s).
Today is #WearOrange Day, which honors the more than 40,000 lives lost to gun violence in America every year. We will always remember you, but we will never forget why you’re gone. We need common-sense gun reform now. @Everytownpic.twitter.com/bzCAl3EDXP
Those opposed to gun control advocates disagree with the characterization of AR-15 as an assault weapon. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade association, argues that assault rifles are fully automatic, like machine guns.
In 1994, Congress included AR-15s in the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” or the “Federal Assault Weapons Ban.” The ban on AR-15s lasted until 2004. A vast majority of the studies on the effects of the ban concluded that its effects were negligible on gun crime.
President Joe Biden claimed last March that the decade-long Federal Assault Weapons Ban resulted in a reduction in mass killings. However, even FactCheckdisputed his claim.
Hobbs has also historically opposed concealed carry. In June, Hobbs decried the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision to strike down New York’s restriction on concealed carry.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
During Tuesday’s policy meeting, the Phoenix City Council approved a resolution permitting the Phoenix Police Department (PPD) to deprioritize investigations of abortion law violations. It doesn’t distinguish between early-term and late-term abortions.
“The proposed resolution also declares Council’s support for City officials in establishing law enforcement priorities that consider the need to protect the physical, psychological, and socioeconomic well-being of pregnant persons and their care providers, and make the enforcement of laws that restrict or deny abortion and abortion-related care the lowest priority for law enforcement,” stated the resolution.
The resolution also decried the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Dobbs v. Jackson ruling that no constitutional right to abortion exists. Despite being the only item on the agenda, the resolution inspired over an hour and a half of discussion and public comment.
The people of Phoenix share a core value – the right to make their own personal decisions. Today, the Phoenix City Council and I honored that by passing a resolution declaring opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson criminalizing abortion. (1/3)
The resolution deviates from previous promises by the council to prohibit city resources and personnel from enforcing abortion bans or restrictions, as reflected in a draft copy of the resolution shared with the Arizona Republic. It appears the council changed their mind based on a legal assessment by City Attorney Cris Meyer.
“City resources and personnel will not be used to enforce any state ban or restrictions,” read the draft resolution. “[This resolution] directs the City Manager to implement the resolution including necessary changes to policies and procedures and bring changes to the City Council as necessary.”
Council in favor of the resolution lamented that they couldn’t do more to prevent the enforcement of abortion restrictions and bans. They passed the resolution 6-2.
Those who continued to provide abortions after the SCOTUS ruling, such as Camelback Family Planning, told the Arizona Republic that they likely wouldn’t continue to provide abortions even if Phoenix made itself a sanctuary city for abortion.
Public commentary reflected a divide in the community on the acceptability of abortion. Those who spoke in favor of the resolution represented the establishment, by and large: activists, state legislative candidates, and a former PPD leader. Those who opposed the resolution were avowed Christian citizens.
The ACLU of Arizona Victoria Lopez said that the council’s resolution would protect women’s “right” to abortion. Lopez encouraged the council to work around the legal issues presented by Meyer in order to limit city resources and personnel when enforcing abortion law.
Democratic state representative candidate Analise Ortiz, a former ACLU strategist and mainstream media journalist, urged the council to undertake that effort as well. Ortiz claimed that she and other women would be incarcerated for getting an abortion. Neither the total abortion ban or the 15-week abortion restriction punish the mother for getting an abortion. Likewise, Democratic state senator candidate Anna Hernandez advocated for the council to do more beyond the resolution.
Dianne Post, an activist lawyer, compared pregnancy to slavery. She claimed that SCOTUS decided to overturn Roe v. Wade because of Christianity, not constitutional law.
“We have no morality police in the United States,” asserted Post.
Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ) Board Member Parris Wallace said that she decided to have two of her children, and one aborted. Wallace reminded the council that PPAZ endorsed the majority of them.
“You owe it to your constituents and ours to hold the line,” said Wallace.
At last night's @CityofPhoenixAZ meeting: @ppazaction board member Parris Wallace: "I've had three pregnancies and I've chosen to have two children." *crowd gasps; Wallace laughs, points at crowd* "Yeah! That means I had an abortion, y'all." pic.twitter.com/QIrF7OfMPN
Retired PPD Assistant Chief Sandra Renteria stated that PPD would waste their time enforcing state law restricting or banning abortions. Renteria said there were more important crimes to address.
“Police officers do not want to be the immigration police and certainly don’t want to be the abortion police,” said Renteria.
A 16-year-old girl named Addison Walker opposed the resolution. She questioned why the council would vindicate the morality of ending an unborn child’s life based on whether the mother wants her or not.
“If your closest friend was murdered, what would you say if the police were instructed to ‘deprioritize’ the investigation of that murder? Would you not be outraged?” said Walker. “Remember: if you deprioritize this law, their blood is on your hands. Your names will go down in history as those who willingly promoted the holocaust of infants in Arizona. More importantly, on Judgment Day, when God judges the righteous and unrighteous, you will be held guilty and be punished for what you have failed to do.”
A woman named Ashley testified that her miscarriage experience convicted her that abortion is a great evil that kills an unborn child, not “a clump of cells.”
“If you vote ‘yes’ on this resolution, you aren’t doing anything noble. Certainly not the babies, nor the bereft mothers, nor even the abortion doctors who cauterize their own consciences with every baby they rip apart,” stated Ashley.
A husband and wife, Christopher and Candace Samuels, both spoke against the resolution. Christopher admonished the council for deprioritizing policing on the most violent crime being committed, while Candace said the resolution encouraged people to break the law. The couple described themselves as refugees of California.
“This is absolutely, as my husband said, abominable,” said Candace. “Please stand up for what our state’s law is, instead of trying to do a sneaky little back-door resolution to get your way.”
Watch the entire Phoenix City Council policy meeting below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Approximately 1 in 5 Arizonans reside in a fire district, but a new sales tax proposition wants all Arizonans to foot the bill. Firefighter union leaders say that it’s only fair, given the massive amount that tourists spend in the state. Yet, opponents of Proposition 310 warn that the sales tax generating hundreds of millions every year not only avoids transparency of expenditures — they say it also would set a precedent for all Arizonans to continue footing the bill, even when they don’t benefit.
Proponents of Prop 310 insist that it will help underfunded rural fire departments and improve response times. However, unlike a specific allocation by the state legislature from the general fund, a sales tax wouldn’t require fire departments to disclose how they spent those funds.
One concerned resident of Yavapai County, Dwight Kadar, relayed this information during three live town hall meetings hosted by the Arizona Secretary of State on October 1, 3, and 4. Kadar told AZ Free News that, at most, rural fire districts would see 25 percent of that sales tax revenue.
“Instead of the legislature working with the union to identify what’s a troubled fire district and appropriate from the $5 billion surplus in the current budget that was just approved, they do a one-size-fits-all from a sales tax. Had the state appropriated money targeted to those districts, those districts would’ve been required by law on how they spent the money,” said Kadar. “They have gotten the citizens of Arizona in the corner. Any shortfall in their pensions, we taxpayers have to make up.”
Kadar also revealed that Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona (PFFA) union members were telling residents, especially the elderly in assisted living homes, that their response times would be slower if Prop 310 doesn’t pass. Kadar said he rejected that claim, and likened PFFA rhetoric to extortion.
“They’re basically saying, ‘If we don’t get money, well, our response time is tied to how much money you give us,’” stated Kadar. “That’s the classic definition of extortion.”
In response to his concerns presented during two of the town halls, Kadar relayed that PFFA President Bryan Jeffries told him that he had no business talking about Prop 310. A representative of Jeffries’ reportedly even falsely accused Kadar of not living in Yavapai County.
Kadar said that the PFFA members ignored proposed alternatives to a sales tax that exist in other states, such as billing non-district residents for services.
Last Saturday, Jeffries published an opinion piece with the Arizona Republicadvocating for Prop 310. Jeffries stated that the sales tax cost was low, a penny for every $10, and would combat inflation burdening fire districts.
“In this time of crisis, each Arizona voter has the opportunity to act as our first responders do when they face an emergency,” wrote Jeffries. “Together, we can move toward the crisis and solve it, doing everything in our power to help those in need.”
PFFA endorses Democratic candidates Katie Hobbs for governor and Kris Mayes for attorney general.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC), another group that opposes Prop 310, says that the tax increase would come out to $200 million — not PFFA’s estimation of $150 million. AFEC argued that fire districts’ financial woes originated from years of budget mismanagement, not the recent inflation crisis.
“Prop 310 is not the solution, as it increases taxes on all Arizonans to subsidize a few and does not include reforms to ensure responsible and accountable use of taxpayer money in the future,” stated AFEC.
Kadar insisted that Prop 310 would have a snowball effect on the cost to taxpayers, not only with fire districts needing more funding but other groups looking to implement similar sales taxes to meet their needs.
“Who’s going to be the next group that’s going to want to have their own issues paid for by the whole of Arizona citizens?” said Kadar. “It’s only a penny. That’s how it always starts.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (AZCCEC) accused Arizona State University (ASU) President Michael Crow of playing favorites by giving Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs the interview she wanted. Normally, AZCCEC and ASU’s Arizona PBS station coordinate debates between candidates.
Last month, AZCCEC rejected Hobbs’ proposed alternative to a debate with Republican opponent Kari Lake: two back-to-back, individual interviews of each candidate. Since only Lake agreed to the debate terms set forth by AZCCEC, she was scheduled to have an interview in lieu of a debate on Tuesday. However, hours before Lake’s interview was to take place, AZCCEC learned that Arizona PBS (AZPBS) went behind their back to schedule a special interview with Hobbs next Tuesday — moving them to postpone Lake’s interview.
In a statement shared with multiple news outlets, Crow claimed that he wasn’t involved in a policy-level decision concerning the debate. However, he disclosed that he advised AZPBS that giving Hobbs airtime was necessary. ASU owns AZPBS.
“But I did indicate that we need to continue to fulfill our mission of unbiased and nonpartisan coverage of public figures and talk to important people in the public realm like Lake and Hobbs to have the public learn of their views, even if there is no debate,” stated Crow.
In response to Crow’s remarks, AZCCEC Executive Director Tom Collins asserted to reportersthat Crow influenced AZPBS editorial decisions.
Collins also said that it wasn’t acceptable for the AZCCEC to be involved in the kind of behavior exhibited by AZPBS.
“The issue here is the way AZPBS went about soliciting this particular interview and then having one candidate announce [it] on the day that another candidate — who had followed a specific set of rules that ASU had agreed to as well — [had their interview, which] made it look like ASU was playing favorites with candidates,” said Collins.
"The issue here is the way that @ArizonaPBS went about soliciting this particular interview … made it look like @ASU is playing favorites with the candidates. Well, that's not acceptable …"
AZPBS’ special exception for Hobbs prompted the Arizona House Republicans to take action. State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) pledged in a press release to introduce legislation to sever all state ties and support of AZPBS if the station didn’t cancel Hobbs’ interview.
“It would be inappropriate for the state to continue its relationship with AZPBS, given its sabotaging of the clean elections debates that were approved by the voters,” stated Kavanagh. “The clean elections rules are clear. If a candidate refused to debate, their opponent (who is willing to debate) is eligible to have a 30-minute question and answer session.”
Kavanagh added that AZPBS was wrong for essentially lifting AZCCEC’s penalization for Hobbs. He predicted that AZPBS was setting a precedent to encourage future candidates to avoid debates.
“I believe the station’s decision to reward a candidate’s refusal to debate, by giving them free television time, is tantamount to making a partisan political contribution to their campaign,” wrote Kavanagh. “AZPBS needs to keep its thumb off the election scale and not shortchange the voters.”
Rep. @JohnKavanagh_AZ announces intent to sponsor legislation to sever state support of @AZPBS if it fails to correct troubling 11th hour decision to circumvent AZ Clean Elections Commission debate rules.
AZPBS offered Lake an interview as well, one also not arranged or approved by AZCCEC. However, Lake formally rejected that offer in a letter sent to AZPBS, Crow, and AZCCEC on Thursday. The letter, written by attorney Timothy La Sota, said that Lake would only come to the interview if it was reformatted as a debate between her and Hobbs.
“PBS & ASU have betrayed not only the Clean Elections Commission, but every voter in Arizona by going behind the backs of citizens to allow Hobbs to continue dodging a debate,” read the letter. “Any other format [than a debate] will result in the complete destruction of a 20-year tradition.”
Hobbs claimed that Lake’s refusal to the alternative interview was her opponent’s way of making a “spectacle.”
And there you have it. If Kari Lake can’t create a spectacle and has to take tough questions about her dangerous record, she won’t participate. https://t.co/A6EasmsZCF
For the first time in history, it appears that Arizona PBS has cast a vote for governor — and not for the candidate they owed a platform to on Wednesday. As it stands, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs got what she wanted while Republican opponent Kari Lake was left empty-handed.
Just for Hobbs, Arizona PBS ignored Arizona Clean Elections Commission’s (AZCCEC) decision and scheduled a one-on-one interview with Hobbs. The move by Arizona PBS forced a cancellation of Lake’s interview, which in itself was a consolation for voters that Lake secured with her unwavering willingness to debate. Lake had even advocated for Hobbs to have an open invitation to the debate; in this case, it seems no good deed goes unpunished.
In response to the last-minute cancellation, Lake held a press conference outside the Arizona PBS building. Lake’s remarks triggered protestors nearby, who attempted to drown out Lake by shouting.
“Unfortunately, PBS and ASU have done a backroom deal with that coward [Katie Hobbs] to give her airtime which she does not deserve,” said Lake.
Starting at 4:00 PM AZ time…
LIVE – PBS Betrays Kari Lake, Clean Elections Commission & Arizona Voters — BIG MISTAKE!https://t.co/H9PnwCAITD
Arizona PBS and its owner, Arizona State University (ASU),are taxpayer-funded. Lake asked voters to call the ASU School of Journalism, KAET-PBS, and ASU President Michael Crow to complain about the capitulation to Hobbs.
“This is not an arm of the Democratic National Committee, and unfortunately it appears that’s what it has become. Walter Cronkite would be rolling over in his grave right now at what’s happening here,” said Lake.
AZCCEC decided to postpone Lake’s interview because Arizona PBS scheduled an independent interview with Hobbs without their knowledge. AZCCEC shared in a public statement that they were surprised by Arizona PBS.
“This decision is disappointing, especially following the multiple attempts on behalf of all the partners involved in producing this year’s General Election debates, to organize a traditional gubernatorial debate between the two candidates,” stated AZCCEC.
Hobbs will be interviewed by Arizona PBS next Tuesday. Lake said that she would accept a similar invitation, but only if it was restructured to be a debate with Hobbs. Lake promised that she wouldn’t yell, wouldn’t interrupt, and would allow Hobbs to write the debate questions and bring an emotional support animal if necessary.
“If she doesn’t appear with me, they should kick her out and say she should not be on the airwaves at PBS,” said Lake. “Show up like a grown-up and debate.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
