Arizona legislators are taking action to honor the memories of fallen U.S. service members from the state.
On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed HB 2818, which “requires all state agencies to lower displayed flags to half-staff upon the death of a service member having a home of record in Arizona,” according to the overview provided by the chamber.
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ Arizona House Approves the “Dan Ari Act” Requiring Flags Lowered to Honor Fallen Servicemembers#HB2818 sponsor @QuangNguyenAZ: “This legislation is dedicated to the families of our servicemembers. Lowering the flags in respectful observance for a day… pic.twitter.com/pMda9IZ42x
The proposal passed the state house unanimously. Three members did not vote, and one seat was vacant.
State Representative Quang Nguyen, the bill’s sponsor, said, “This legislation is dedicated to the families of our servicemembers. Lowering the flags in respectful observance for a day is the least we can do to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our great nation. For many of the families, it is all they have left.”
HB2818, THE DAN ARI ACT, requires all state agencies to lower displayed flags to half-staff upon the death of a service member having a home of record in Arizona. Unanimous. pic.twitter.com/yL5e0hl00v
The bill would “direct the Governor to notify all state agencies to fly displayed flags in front of state buildings at half-staff within 48 hours after receiving notification of the death of a service member whose home of record is in Arizona.”
Earlier this month, the legislation was approved by the House Committee on Military Affairs & Public Safety with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 13-1 (with one member voting ‘present’).
Representative Nguyen also explained why he had named the bill after one of his constituents, saying, “I’m proud to name HB 2818 in honor of my constituent Daniel Aragaki, known to friends as Dan Ari. Dan was among the many, many veterans who weren’t treated very well when returning from service in Vietnam. Today, he actively volunteers with the Veterans History Project and the Sedona Area Veterans Community Outreach, supporting and honoring veterans in our state.”
At the beginning of this month, a U.S. Marine, Sgt. Alec Langen, was killed, alongside of four others, in a military helicopter crash near San Diego. Sgt. Langen was from Chandler, and left behind a wife of one month. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs shared her thoughts over the tragedy on her “X” account, saying, “I am heartbroken at the loss of Sgt. Alec Langen, one of the five Marines killed in this week’s helicopter crash. On behalf of the State of Arizona, I extend my deepest condolences to Sgt. Langen’s family as we grieve the passing of one of Arizona’s finest warriors.”
I am heartbroken at the loss of Sgt. Alec Langen, one of the five Marines killed in this week's helicopter crash.
On behalf of the State of Arizona, I extend my deepest condolences to Sgt. Langen's family as we grieve the passing of one of Arizona's finest warriors.
The next week, Governor Hobbs ordered flags at Arizona state buildings to be lowered to half-staff in honor of Sgt. Langen.
Flags are at half-staff today in honor of U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Alec Langen, who was one of the casualties of the February 6 helicopter crash during a training flight in California. RIP https://t.co/IYOyBjZzdNpic.twitter.com/SjXvd8uaqg
Arizona Legislative Republicans aren’t finished with the City of Phoenix’s action to donate firearms to Ukraine.
Last week, three Arizona State Representatives sent a letter to Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, calling on the prosecutor to “immediately undertake a criminal and civil investigation of City of Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego and City Councilmembers for their intentional and flagrant violation of state law in connection with their actions surrounding the City’s Ordinance S-50010.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨 House Members Demand Investigation of City of Phoenix’s Intentional Violation of State Firearms Law
Following a damning report last month from the Arizona Attorney General finding the City of Phoenix intentionally violated state law approving an… pic.twitter.com/4hOuDmtENP
The letter from Representatives Travis Grantham, Quang Nguyen, and Selina Bliss, follows a response from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes regarding a 1487 complaint for “a recently passed City of Phoenix ordinance allowing the illegal donation of 599 unclaimed firearms to Ukraine’s national police force.” Mayes’ report found that “Arizona law requires cities to dispose of unclaimed firearms by selling them in the manner provided by statute, yet the Ordinance provides for Phoenix to dispose of its unclaimed firearms by donating them to Ukraine via an export company. Because a ‘donation’ is not a ‘sale’ – and because the Ordinance conflicts with A.R.S. 12-945 in other related respects – it violates that statute, and therefore also violates A.R.S. 13-3108(A) and A.R.S. 12-943.”
Attorney General Mayes’ findings forced the City of Phoenix to repeal the Ordinance, as the lawmakers admitted in their letter to Mitchell. However, the legislators noted some “alarming details” contained in Mayes’ report “that confirm the City Council’s lawlessness and egregious disregard for state law.” One of those details was that when faced with the threat of the Attorney General’s investigation, the City’s counsel disclosed that the City has already completed the firearms transfer contemplated by the Ordinance and the Agreement.
The three state lawmakers argue that “neither the AG’s Report nor the City’s repeal of its Ordinance absolves the City Mayor or Councilmembers of criminal or civil liability for their misconduct,” hoping that the County Attorney could determine “the extent to which the City’s elected officials conspired to: (1) knowingly and repeatedly violate state law – particularly after we alerted them to the illegality of their conduct; (2) conceal their conduct; and (3) interfere with, coerce, or thwart the Attorney General’s S.B. 1487 investigation through improper means or communications.”
At the end of the letter, the legislators wrote, “In a free society, it is critical that our elected officials follow the rule of law, even when they may disagree with the underlying policy of the law. Citizens in our state are held to this standard every day. Arizonans reasonably expect – and the law demands – that government leaders likewise comply with state law or risk serious consequences for their intentional disregard of the law.” They added their collective hope that “the Mayor and City Councilmembers must also be held fully accountable for facilitating crimes of others through their illegal transfer of weapons, including but not limited to domestic civil offenses, war crimes, and organized crimes defined in Chapter 23 of Title 13.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Republican legislators are cheering on a recent legal opinion by the state’s top prosecutor.
On Wednesday, Arizona House Judiciary Chairman Quang Nguyen and Vice Chair Selina Bliss announced that they had received an answer from Attorney General Kris Mayes on the 1487 complaint they had filed with her office over “a recently passed City of Phoenix ordinance allowing the illegal donation of 599 unclaimed firearms to Ukraine’s national police force.” The lawmakers shared that the attorney general “issued an investigative report, agreeing with the legislators that the ordinance violates multiple state laws and directing the City to repeal it within 30 days.”
Nguyen and Bliss issued a joint statement, saying, “We appreciate the Attorney General’s report affirming the City of Phoenix ordinance’s violation of state law. It is frustrating that Mayor Kate Gallego and Councilmembers were informed of this as far back as July 3, yet Mayor Gallego then willfully, disregarded state law and rushed the transfer of these firearms abroad. Then, while a pending investigation into the ordinance’s legality was underway, the City attempted to cancel the arrangement altogether to avoid the Attorney General’s report. That’s not leadership, it’s shameful. As public officials, it is imperative that we uphold the rule of law and respect our state constitution. Witnessing Mayor Gallego blatantly neglect this responsibility, especially with full awareness of the law and its implications, is disheartening.”
Mayes’ report looked at a 2017 Arizona Supreme Court ruling to assist with her determination of the matter at hand, finding, “In 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether a Tucson ordinance providing for the destruction of firearms could coexist with an Arizona statute barring firearms destruction. The Court held that firearms regulation is a matter of statewide concern, thereby precluding cities from enacting firearms ordinances that conflict with state law.”
The Attorney General’s office concluded that this judicial precedent “is controlling here,” adding, “Arizona law requires cities to dispose of unclaimed firearms by selling them in the manner provided by statute, yet the Ordinance provides for Phoenix to dispose of its unclaimed firearms by donating them to Ukraine via an export company. Because a ‘donation’ is not a ‘sale’ – and because the Ordinance conflicts with A.R.S. 12-945 in other related respects – it violates that statute, and therefore also violates A.R.S. 13-3108(A) and A.R.S. 12-943.”
The report from Attorney General Mayes may have sided with the Arizona lawmakers on the legality of the City of Phoenix’s actions, but addressed the motivations behind the City’s efforts, encouraging adherence to the law in future attempts or vehicles. The Office ended its report by stating, “While the Office believes that controlling legal authorities compel this conclusion, this report should not be construed as a rebuke of the public spirit underlying the City’s desire to aid Ukraine or as an endorsement of the policy underlying Arizona’s firearms disposition statutes. Nor should it discourage future support and donations to Ukraine or elsewhere that can be carried out in compliance with Arizona law.”
In a statement, Mayes expressed concern over the existence of the laws that she had just found to be controlling in this situation. She said, “While my office has determined that Phoenix’s ordinance conflicts with state laws concerning firearm disposal, I am deeply troubled by these statutes. These laws are inflexible and frankly offensive to the victims of crime and communities affected by gun violence. The laws essentially mandate that confiscated firearms, most of which have been used in crimes, must be resold and put back on the streets. That is an insult to the survivors and victims of the original gun violence. These laws perpetrate a cycle where weapons are reintroduced into the very communities that have already been harmed by gun violence. The families of people who are murdered or maimed by gun violence should not have to live with the knowledge that those weapons are still on the streets.”
Mayes called for legislators to “focus on passing sensible gun legislation instead of filing complaints against cities like Phoenix.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal“I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
