Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) is questioning why the Capitol wasn’t secured during the Jan. 6, 2021 breach.
Lesko posed the question in response to an interview aired last month by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson on his newer, independent show platformed by X (formerly known as Twitter). Tucker interviewed the Capitol Police Chief at the time of the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol, Steven Sund. Fox News never aired the original interview with Carlson, which occurred in April.
“Why wasn’t [the] Capitol secured on Jan. 6?” asked Lesko. “Tell all from Capitol Chief of Police…”
🚨MUST WATCH: Why wasn't Capitol secured on Jan. 6? Tell all from Capitol Chief of Police… https://t.co/wAU6lgcW6q
In an interview just shy of an hour long, Sund painted a picture of intentional neglect to properly secure the Capitol by federal intelligence, Congress, and military leadership.
U.S. Capitol Police has its own intelligence agency, Intelligence Agency Intelligence Coordination Division (IIACD), which coordinates with other intelligence agencies. Sund said that all intelligence he received indicated that the planned Jan. 6 protest would be “just like the other MAGA rallies” that occurred in November and December, with “limited skirmishes” involving Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM).
However, Sund said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the military had intelligence not received by Capitol Police, such as planned attacks on Congress and violence against police officers.
Federal reports assessing the government preparation and response to the Jan. 6 breach are linked below, and arranged in order from oldest to newest:
Sund said neither the FBI or DHS put out a single official document specific to Jan. 6, which he said was unusual. Sund reported that normally one or both agencies would issue briefings addressing anticipated dangers, such as a Joint Intelligence Bulletin (JIB). None were issued ahead of the incident, as noted by the Senate Rules Committee. It was only after the attack that the intelligence agencies issued a JIB about potential future attacks inspired by the Jan. 6 events.
The GAO put together a timeline of open source data that government agencies collected concerning planned attacks on the Capitol months prior to Jan. 6.
On Jan. 5, the day before the attack, Sund said he had a conference call with then-chief of police at the Metropolitan Police Department, Robert Contee; then-assistant director of the FBI Washington Field Office, Steve D’Antuono; then-commander of the Army Military District of Washington, Omar Jones; then-commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, William Walker. Sund said not one person on the call expressed concerns about any threats of violence at the Capitol. DHS was absent from the call.
A Senate committee report released in July revealed that intelligence agencies repeatedly ignored planned threats of violence concerning Jan. 6. Some of those threats were addressed in emails to D’Antuono leading up to the attack. Yet, Sund said D’Antuono said nothing about those warnings.
Sund said that he wasn’t the only police chief in the dark, citing Contee as another leader who didn’t receive notifications on potential dangers, like the Norfolk memo. That Situational Information Report (SIR) from the Norfolk division of the FBI warned of the potential for violence in connection to the planned Jan. 6 rally. Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he never read the memo.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller discussed locking down the city and revoking permits on Capitol Hill, according to Sund. Sund said he never received requests to revoke the permits, though that was under his purview.
“Instead, on Jan. 4, what does Miller do? He puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying various weapons, any weapons, any civil disobedience equipment that would be utilized for the very demonstrations or violence that he sees coming. It just doesn’t make any sense,” said Sund. “When I was calling begging for assistance on Jan. 6, they weren’t allowed to respond at first.”
Sund said the CPB denied him federal resources twice due to “optics” and “because the intelligence didn’t support” his requests. The CPB included Paul Irving, House Sergeant of Arms, who responded directly to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Stenger, Senate Sergeant of Arms, who responded directly to Minority Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, at the time.
“Even when we’re under attack, I have to go to those same two people to request the National Guard to be brought in,” said Sund.
The third and final member of the CPB is the Architect of the Capitol. From 2020 until February, that was Brett Blanton. President Joe Biden fired Blanton in February over extensive allegations of misconduct detailed in an inspector general report last year. Blanton told investigators that wasn’t at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because he was working remotely that day; Blanton further stated that neither he nor his staff spoke with Capitol Police about a request for an emergency declaration or National Guard support in advance of the Capitol breach.
Sund recounted the key timeline of that fateful day.
According to Sund, there were at least 150-180 National Guard members in the Capitol at law enforcement’s disposal, many within eyesight of the Capitol. The Capitol was breached at 12:53; by 12:55, Sundcalled the Washington, D.C. police department and spoke with Jeff Carroll for help. At 12:58, he called Sergeant Arms asking for additional assistance from the military. Irving said he would “run it up the chain,” implying Pelosi. The law allows Irving to make the decision himself in an emergency situation, such as that which occurred Jan. 6.
Stenger also deferred to Irving when Sund called. Over the next 71 minutes, Sund reported calling 32 people for help, including 17 police agencies. 11 of those calls were follow-up calls to Irving. After all that time, Irving finally issued approval for federal assistance.
We know that the President of the United States incited this insurrection – this armed rebellion – against our American democracy. He must go. pic.twitter.com/pIxOv2hOQv
Irving testified to the Senate in 2021 that he disagreed with Sund’s recollection. Sund said that testimony almost didn’t happen. When the Senate initially issued its call for testimony, it reportedly asked for only current security employees — which would’ve excluded Irving, Stenger, and Sund. Those three men were at the top of the security apparatus on Jan. 6. It wasn’t until Sund contacted the rules committee to ask to testify that the three men were included.
To date, Irving has never explained why it took him 71 minutes to obtain permission to deploy federal assistance that day. He resigned promptly after Jan. 6, and he is retired according to his LinkedIn, where he was last active at least seven months ago. Stenger passed away last June.
Pelosi, the head of Irving’s chain of command, was exempted from congressional inquiries into Jan. 6; Rep. Bennie Thompson effectively said that there was no need to look into Pelosi.
“Bennie Thompson said there is only one request: Nancy Pelosi is off limits…Shouldn't the very first question be, why was the Capitol so ill-prepared that day?" – @GOPLeader on Pelosi's illegitimate partisan witch-hunt👇 pic.twitter.com/xTKBH9txw2
The day after the Jan. 6 incident, there appeared to be a lockstep effort to assign blame for the Capitol invasion on Sund.
Pelosi called for Sund’s resignation, and falsely claimed that Sund hadn’t contacted her since the Capitol invasion. Yet, Sund spoke with Pelosi on the evening of Jan. 6.
Then, the intelligence agencies told mainstream media outlets through anonymous sources that Capitol Police turned down federal resources in the days leading up to Jan. 6.
Sund resigned after the Jan. 6 incident; in January, Sund released a memoir, “Courage Under fire: Under Siege and Outnumbered 58 to 1 on January 6,” detailing the events of that day.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Republican lawmakers are warning the Flagstaff City Council that their proposed ban on firearms ads would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
In a letter obtained by AZ Free News, State Reps. David Marshall (R-LD07), Leo Biasucci (R-LD30), and Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) told the council that the ban presented multiple constitutional concerns such as viewpoint discrimination and would violate state law, citing A.R.S. §13-3108.
“We trust that you realize, however, that the draft policy has nothing to do with ‘violence’ or ‘antisocial behavior.’ As written, the draft policy raises a host of constitutional concerns, including viewpoint discrimination,” said the lawmakers.
Flagstaff is set to vote today on a new radical ad policy discriminating against firearms-related speech. I joined my @AZHouse colleagues @DaveMarshallAZ and @Leo4AzHouse in calling out its potential constitutional violations and likely breach of state law. #1A#2Apic.twitter.com/cBWUBsgaTP
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) agreed with his fellow lawmakers’ assessment of the policy.
“This can’t stand, what is repugnant to the Constitution should be void,” said Gillette.
During the meeting, Councilmember Lori Matthews said that firearms-related businesses should still be allowed to advertise, and proposed more specific restrictions on depictions of violence rather than banning all display of firearms in general.
“I feel uncomfortable thinking we would turn off a whole industry,” said Matthews.
Councilmember Jim McCarthy compared massage parlors, marijuana and cigarette shops to firearms, saying that none of those business owners were complaining of their inability to advertise. McCarthy claimed that the firearms-related businesses wouldn’t be hurt by this policy.
“This will have no effect on the operation of any of these businesses. What they can do or not do is determined by state law and other regulations,” said McCarthy. “[This policy will] have no impact on free speech in general.”
Councilmember Deb Harris said she didn’t need any more explanation of the policy changes, and that she was in full support of the draft policy as it stood.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen recommended requiring firearms-related companies to include compelled speech consisting of a “safety message” in their advertisements.
Hansen further disclosed that their rejection of an ad placement by Timber Firearms and Training was due to the fact that the ad video depicted a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
It appears that Timber Firearms and Training ad placement request was the motivator for the new proposed policy.
Wilson spoke out against the policy during Tuesday’s meeting. He noted that ads do have an impact, contrary to what some on the council implied.
“Sadly, some of our customers are like the single mother that just left the judge’s chambers. She has an order of protection but knows the abuser’s not going to honor that. She has to come someplace where she can get training and where she can get armed to defend herself and her children,” said Wilson. “If she didn’t know we existed, what would the result be?”
Wilson further warned the council that the proposed policy would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Michael Infanzon, a lobbyist representing the Arizona Citizens Defense League (ACDL), also voiced opposition to the policy. Infanzon said that the policy ran afoul of the Constitution and Arizona statute.
“[Municipalities] cannot enforce a complete ban unless they can demonstrate that such advertising constitutes a threat to public health and safety,” recited Infanzon.
Councilmember Miranda Sweet said Timber Firearms and Training may have to compromise.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Vice Mayor Austin Aslan said the proposed policy was “far too descriptive” and suggested changing the language to reflect “weapons” rather than “firearms.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) will not reveal the identity of the student who threatened to shoot up the James E. College of Law campus over “transphobes” this past spring semester.
Police records reflect that the threats were made in the days leading up to April 10th, prompting concerns that lasted throughout the month and moved the law school to hold its last week of classes and finals remotely.
UArizona told AZ Free News that they redacted the student’s name from official records due to privacy and confidentiality issues.
According to records first obtained by 13 News, the University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) reported finding “threatening messages referencing killing people at UA campus” on the student’s phone. They found a search history that included questions around shooting accuracy, mass shootings, the Michigan State shooting, and Tucson shooting ranges. In an Instagram post included within police records, the student said they would rather kill a transphobe than be killed.
“All the gay people I know in the US are afraid for their life every day,” read the post. “I pack a loaded 9mm around with me because I’d rather kill a transphobe than get killed. But even then, I’d still probably die in a gunfight.”
Also according to police records, a friend reported to police that the student expressed an intent to shoot people. A friend also reported that the student would carry a gun onto campus property, despite knowing that it violated university policy.
“[The student] was talking oddly and that within the odd speech, [the student] stated, ‘I’m gonna shoot people’ as well as ‘they’re gonna come to shoot me’ and ‘I’m gonna shoot them before they shoot me,’” said the report. “[The student] has a gun and takes it to the university even though [the student] knows [they’re] not supposed to but uses it for protection in case [they’re] attacked.”
These threats emerged just weeks after the Christian elementary school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee. The shooter — 28-year-old Aiden Hale, formerly known as Audrey Hale — was a woman who identified as a transgender man and a former student of the school. Three children and three adults were murdered by Hale before police stopped her.
Police records reflected that the UArizona student was hospitalized for mental health issues on April 10. Yet, on April 28, UAPD was notified that the student’s NetID WiFi was used in an attempted log-in on a campus computer. The student was not on campus. The interim public safety officer said the student was “in care” and not on campus at the time of the log-in.
In May, the student was reportedly entered into a federal database to prevent the future purchase of a firearm.
At the time of the threats and in a statement last week, the university repeatedly declared that the student posed no threat to campus. Interim Chief Safety Officer Steve Patterson said as much in a statement last Friday on the incident.
“UAPD has categorized the matter as a mental health-related case rather than a criminal matter,” said Patterson. “The investigation by the University of Arizona Police Department found that friends identified a student in crisis off-campus in April and sought care for their friend. While the student was in supervised care — and therefore posed no threat to the campus community — the student’s friends turned in a loaded handgun to the Tucson Police Department and informed them that the student had made verbal threats, although later statements indicated that the threat was less clear.”
Yet, Patterson advised students to remain vigilant on campus.
“The April incident is an important reminder that all of us must remain vigilant in the face of threatening or concerning behavior,” said Patterson.
According to the report, the student was banned from campus and university activities.
The University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) maintains a public list of banned individuals. Their policy maintains that these exclusionary orders are issued for a minimum of six months and potentially up to one year from the date of the offense. According to that list, there are 90 individuals who were banned within the potential same time frame as the student who issued the shooting threat.
At least one of the individuals within that time frame on the Exclusionary Orders list identifies as a transgender individual. It also appears that one of those individuals could have the ability to log in remotely to a campus computer — as it appears the student did on April 28 — having been an information technology services employee for the university until around May.
Questions concerning the ability of UArizona students to “remain vigilant” of an unidentified, banned student remain unanswered. UArizona referredAZPM to the redacted police report and Patterson’s statement when asked. The university also wouldn’t confirm whether the student is included in the UAPD exclusionary orders list.
The entire list of those banned within the same potential time frame as the student who made the shooting threat are listed below:
Timothy Hallman, exclusion through Oct. 11, 2023
Lawrence Littlefield, exclusion through Oct. 12, 2023
Eric Gates, exclusion through Oct. 13, 2023
Joseph Mackinder, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jeffery Garland, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jorge Howard, exclusion through Oct. 20, 2023
Kyle Narreau, exclusion through Oct. 25, 2023
Christopher Bravo, exclusion through Oct. 28, 2023
Jacob Ficek, exclusion through Oct. 29, 2023
Daniel Frescura, exclusion through Nov. 2, 2023
Bob Bernal, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jack Music, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Eva Arevalo, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jerry Johnson, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jordan Daniel, exclusion through Nov. 9, 2023
Peter Fass, exclusion through Nov. 10, 2023
David Petersen, exclusion through Nov. 14, 2023
Ronald Andrews, exclusion through Nov. 15, 2023
Luis Leveta, exclusion through Nov. 16, 2023
Randy Elam, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Kieth Davis, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Chester Carroll, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Joshua Neuser, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Benjamin Burch, exclusion through Nov. 18, 2023
Kimberly Meadows, exclusion through Nov. 22, 2023
Wallace Leight, exclusion through Nov. 23, 2023
Victor De Anda, exclusion through Nov. 26, 2023
Roderick Davis, exclusion through Nov. 27, 2023
James Aguilar, exclusion through Nov. 29, 2023
Jarrod Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Chana Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Jamal Shannon, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Carlos Castillo, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Lucas Griffith, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Adrian Davis, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Gregory Nelson, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Victor Zevallos, exclusion through Dec. 12, 2023
Matthew Verheyen, exclusion through Dec. 18, 2023
Wayne Martino, exclusion through Dec. 21, 2023
Mariah Ruiz, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Aaron Collelmo, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Sandra Steinmetz, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Brittney Garcia, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Selahattin Toprak, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Steven Helming, exclusion through Jan. 2, 2024
David Meracle, exclusion through Jan. 4, 2024
Curtis Linner, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Zachary Kindell, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Christian Diaz De Leon, exclusion through Jan. 7, 2024
Dustin M. Klett, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Cody Hill, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Gregory Schmitt, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Robert Ramsey, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Steven Asmar, exclusion through Jan. 17, 2024
Michael Todd, exclusion through Jan. 18, 2024
William Turnbow, exclusion through Jan. 20, 2024
Russell Higgins, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Leona Arreola, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Elijah Salzwedel, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Derek Kirven, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Jeffrey Jorgenson, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Paul Curran, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Jorge Ruiz, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Joseph Hardin, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Johnathan Keeney, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Chad Harvey, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Arik Ruybe, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Anthony Fuentes, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Isaac Gracia, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Jordan Young, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
Raymond Ramirez, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
John Lawicki, exclusion through Feb. 16, 2024
Tristen Dejolie, exclusion through Feb. 17, 2024
Richard Bowlby, exclusion through Feb. 18, 2024
Roman Arriero, exclusion through Feb. 21, 2024
Aric Ballard, exclusion through Feb. 22, 2024
Jason Blaylock, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Ryan Kuhns, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Andrea Young, exclusion through Feb. 25, 2024
Michael Burks, exclusion through Feb. 26, 2024
Leonard Johnson, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Michael Clampitt, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Kevin Huma, exclusion through March 3, 2024
Shannon Baker, exclusion through March 4, 2024
Enrique Lopez, exclusion through March 7, 2024
Kenton Landau, exclusion through March 21, 2024
Herbert Forreset, exclusion through March 30, 2024
Gabriel Sethi, exclusion through March 31, 2024
Jamie Chacon, exclusion through April 7, 2024
Leo Tift, exclusion through April 27, 2024
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Another legal fight is brewing in the State of Arizona.
Last week, Senate President Warren Petersen announced that he had “given the greenlight for the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration for their unconstitutional land grab in Arizona.”
I've given the greenlight for the Senate to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration for their unconstitional land grab in Arizona.
The legislative leader followed up his newsworthy tweet with an in-depth press release on Monday, explaining his reasoning and plan of action for contesting the recent move from the White House. The release asserted that “the blatantly unconstitutional move of confiscating nearly a million acres of land within Coconino and Mohave Counties to designate as a ‘national monument’ is nothing more than a publicity stunt to appeal to his radical environmental base, while in tandem creating dire consequences for the livelihoods of our citizens, Arizona’s economy, as well as our nation’s energy supply.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: President @votewarren Gives the Green Light for Arizona Senate to File Lawsuit Against Biden Administration for Unconstitutional Land Grab ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/5fwkuVVbww
In a statement, Petersen said, “Our nation as a whole is suffering under the incompetence of the Biden Administration, and I will not sit back while he issues another unlawful executive order harming Arizonans. It’s clear he has declared war on American energy production, as our citizens continue to feel the pain of $5 a gallon gas under his radical agenda. Now, he wants to cripple mining across the U.S. and further exacerbate our dependency on dangerous foreign nations for our energy supply, which will continue to drive up costs for taxpayers amid historic inflation.”
Petersen added, “Using the guise of creating a ‘Grand Canyon’ national monument in a remote area that is not even connected to the Grand Canyon is completely disingenuous. This move has nothing to do with protecting the Grand Canyon. It has everything to do with fulfilling his tyrannic desires to block responsible mining and agriculture production in an effort to cater to the extremists who elected him into office. I look forward to fighting on behalf of Arizona in court.”
The Senate President is “directing attorneys to identify all citizens, industries and local governments impacted by this gross overreach and to create a coalition to further examine the detrimental effects President Biden’s land grab is imposing on our state.” He shared that a “fact-finding phase is currently underway, with a goal of filing suit against the Biden Administration by the end of 2023 or early 2024.”
During his visit to Arizona last month, President Joe Biden established the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. In his signed proclamation, Biden wrote, “Protecting the areas to the northeast, northwest, and south of the Grand Canyon will preserve an important spiritual, cultural, prehistoric, and historic legacy; maintain a diverse array of natural and scientific resources; and help ensure that the prehistoric, historic, and scientific value of the areas endures for the benefit of all Americans.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The top prosecutor for Arizona’s largest county continues to take a tough stand against organized retail theft in her jurisdiction.
Last week, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell announced that charges were being filed against an individual who allegedly robbed a jewelry store in Old Town Scottsdale.
The crime occurred in the late morning of September 1 at Marina Jewelers. People outside the store were alerted to the fact that a man running out of the store had purportedly stolen jewelry from the store, and acted to detain him until police arrived to make the arrest.
Mitchell revealed that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office would be charging this individual with Class 2 Theft – in addition to other charges – because of the amount he tried to take from the store. The primary charge, she informed reporters, came with a mandatory prison sentence.
In her opening statement to the press, Mitchell explained that organized retail theft prosecutions have been a priority for her office – not only because of the impact on the businesses experiencing the direct heists – but because of the impact to the community, which includes empty buildings, and loss of jobs, services, or goods. She pointed out that the consequences of these crimes often affect poorer parts of town before trickling to more affluent neighborhoods, making it more difficult for consumers to acquire the goods and services they need for their everyday lives.
The County Attorney highlighted how other states and jurisdictions handle organized retail thefts – especially where prosecutors have set a threshold of $1,000 to activate charges. She emphasized to any potential or current criminals who may be watching: “in Arizona that has not been done.” Her office is willing to prosecute some cases, when appropriate, as felonies.
During her opening remarks, Mitchell twice stated that “this is not the state you want to be in to mimic the behavior you see on the news in other parts of the country, such as Los Angeles.” She referred to Los Angeles as a “hellscape,” in part, due to its lax standards for holding criminals accountable for their organized retail theft offenses.
From County Attorney @Rachel1Mitchell: "This is not the state you want to be in to mimic the behavior that you are seeing on the news in other parts of the country, such as Los Angeles." pic.twitter.com/Bhgl8GpOmY
— Maricopa County Attorney's Office (@marcoattorney) September 7, 2023
Later in her press conference, Mitchell returned to this issue of organized retail theft due to a reporter’s question. Mitchell shared that when she took office, she “felt like our specialized retail theft prosecutors were limited to too high of a dollar amount before they could get involved,” noting that some of these lawbreakers commit smaller offenses at place after place. She informed her audience that upon taking office, one of her initial acts was to lower the value threshold to allow her prosecutors to get involved in the cases earlier, and the second was to create a task force within the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and link their efforts with those of the Arizona Retailers Association.
Mitchell promised that her office is continuing to look at ways to reduce the instances of organized retail theft in the county and to make sure that her jurisdiction does not become like Los Angeles.
In July 2022, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office formed an organized retail theft taskforce, featuring “a group of specialized prosecutors and detectives who will work with local law enforcement and the Arizona Retailer’s Association to address criminal acts involving organized retail theft.” Mitchell at that time said, “Retail stores are being devasted by groups who recklessly and intentionally take what they want and leave destruction in their wake. Many are organized gangs who have found new funding sources with stolen merchandise and the impact of this affects everyone of us.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizonans may have gained valuable insight into the future direction of their state – thanks to a surprising action from a neighboring state.
Last week, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an Executive Order to declare a State of Public Health Emergency due to gun violence. According to the New Mexico Governor’s Office, Grisham’s action plan “includes a suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, temporarily prohibiting the carrying of guns on public property with certain exceptions.”
Today, I signed an executive order declaring gun violence a public health emergency. To my fellow citizens: get loud. Step up. Demand change: from your neighbors, from your friends, from your communities, from your elected leaders. Enough is enough. More coming from me tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/jOt4fv4YDC
The move from the New Mexico Governor was met with both support and opposition, with even members of her own party taking issues with what or how the governor was using her executive powers in this situation.
While Grisham’s order was controversial enough, the Arizona House Democrats Caucus created news of its own by appearing to post an endorsement of the action.
Arizona Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the state’s House and Senate chambers, but both political parties are vying for control of the Legislature in the next election. With a Democrat Governor at the helm of the state, a Democrat takeover of the state legislature would likely have serious repercussions from a policy standpoint, which would undoubtedly include some proposal or action against Second Amendment freedoms.
Republican Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell was quick to respond to the House Democrats’ post, vowing to see them in court if it ever came to that point on this issue of restricting Arizonans’ constitutional freedoms.
— County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) September 9, 2023
The General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, added, “Who’s going to tell them? Or maybe they already know that in addition to the AZ & U.S. constitutions, ARS 26-303(L) has been on the books in Arizona since 2007. Fun fact: the AZ House vote on SB 1258 to protect 2A rights during an ‘emergency’ was 55-0-5.”
Who’s going to tell them? Or maybe they already know that in addition to the AZ & U.S. constitutions, ARS 26-303(L) has been on the books in Arizona since 2007. Fun fact: the AZ House vote on SB 1258 to protect 2A rights during an “emergency” was 55-0-5. https://t.co/ZKcqj0C3UBpic.twitter.com/lnElXTaWv1
Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst and national columnist, opined on the latest from New Mexico, writing, “The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short. Many will of course celebrate the boldness of Grisham in taking away an individual right under a cleaver measure. It is, however, too cleaver by half. If not found moot at the end of the period, New Mexico could supply a vehicle to curtail future public health rationales.”
The order, in my view, is flagrantly unconstitutional under existing Second Amendment precedent. It could also be a calculated effort to evade a ruling by making the period of suspension so short…https://t.co/aURAa8Ict9
Arizona Senator Frank Carroll also weighed in on the New Mexico Governor’s decision, saying, “I’m appalled at what has transpired in the great state of New Mexico. Their radical Democrat Governor is setting a dangerous precedent by violating their law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to protect themselves, their family, and their property against dangerous criminals. Every single American should be outraged at the reckless political agenda that continues to be forced by the Left to control you and undo the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy established by our nation’s Founding Fathers.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: @RepFrankCarroll Condemns New Mexico's Ban on Guns, Vows to Protect Arizonans from Deliberate Violation of Constitutional Rights ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/VoVMjOyfAd
The state’s Senate President, Warren Petersen, made it abundantly clear that a Republican-led Legislature would not stand for such a measure from the governor, stating, “Criminals will be emboldened by the executive order issued by New Mexico’s governor. Law abiding citizens will be left unarmed as criminals ignore the law and paper executive orders. Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Takes good force to stop evil force.”
Criminals will be emboldened by the executive order issued by New Mexicos governor. Law abiding citizens will be left unarmed as criminals ignore the law and paper executive orders. Takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Takes good force to stop evil force.
