by Michael Infanzon | May 3, 2023 | Opinion
By Michael Infanzon |
Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the use of stabilizing braces on firearms, with some people suggesting that these braces make guns deadlier and easier to use in violent attacks. This belief has been perpetuated by some anti-Second Amendment politicians and advocacy groups, including Giffords Law Center, which claims that shooters have used stabilizing braces to “skirt the National Firearms Act and commit horrific tragedies.” But this claim is both misleading and inaccurate.
First, let’s discuss what stabilizing braces actually are. These accessories can be attached to certain firearms, such as pistols, to provide additional support and stability when shooting. They were originally designed to help people with disabilities or injuries to safely and effectively use firearms. But they have since become popular among gun enthusiasts and sport shooters as well.
Giffords and others claim that stabilizing braces are somehow responsible for enabling shooters to commit violent acts. But there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the vast majority of shootings in the United States are committed with illegally obtained firearms, rather than legally purchased guns that have been modified with accessories like stabilizing braces.
Furthermore, the idea that stabilizing braces allow shooters to “skirt” the National Firearms Act (NFA) is also misleading. The NFA regulates certain types of firearms, such as machine guns and short-barreled rifles, and requires owners to register these weapons with the federal government and pay a tax. However, the use of stabilizing braces on pistols is not a violation of the NFA and does not allow individuals to avoid the registration and tax requirements.
In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has issued guidance on the use of stabilizing braces, stating that “the use of a handgun stabilizing brace… does not change the classification of the firearm or impose any additional registration, licensing, or other requirements on the firearm or its owner.” The ATF has also made it clear that it will take action against individuals who use stabilizing braces to create a firearm that meets the definition of a short-barreled rifle, which is regulated under the NFA.
The claim made by Giffords and others that stabilizing braces make firearms deadlier and enable shooters to “skirt” the National Firearms Act is simply not true. There is no evidence to support this claim, and the ATF has made it clear that the use of stabilizing braces on pistols does not violate any federal laws or regulations. It’s important to separate fact from fiction when discussing issues related to firearms and public safety, and to base policy decisions on sound evidence and analysis.
That’s why the Arizona Citizens Defense League and the Arizona Firearms Industry Trade Association will continue to stand up for Arizona citizens and the firearm industry against unconstitutional laws and these types of lies.
Michael Infanzon is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group and lobbies on behalf of groups like the Arizona Citizens Defense League and the Arizona Firearms Industry Trade Association.
by Daniel Stefanski | Apr 3, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs leveled a Republican-led effort to protect Second Amendment rights in Arizona with her 18th veto of the legislative session.
Governor Hobbs vetoed SB 1096, which “prohibits a public entity from entering into a contract of $100,000 or more with a company to acquire or dispose of services, supplies, information technology or construction unless the contract includes a written certification that the company does not, and will not, discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade association.”
Earlier this month, the bill sponsor, Senator Frank Carroll, touted his legislation and its importance to Arizonans, writing: “I sponsored SB 1096, which would prohibit the government from doing business with companies that discriminate against those who are involved within the firearms industry, whether that’s a manufacturer, a trade association or other entity. Over the past several years, the left has failed at infringing on 2nd amendment rights through legislation, so they’re now attempting to hurt the firearms industry through financial means. The government should not enable this practice.”
Carroll mentioned that this bill was his third try to pass this policy through the Arizona Legislature.
Hobbs explained the reasoning for her veto in a customary letter to Senate President Warren Petersen, saying, “This bill is unnecessary and, if enacted, could result in banks leaving Arizona’s market. This would limit competition and increase costs for local governments, costs which ultimately fall on taxpayers.”
The National Rifle Association (NRA) took note of Hobbs’ veto and signaled its immediate displeasure in the action soon after it was announced. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action stated, “Yesterday, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed Senate Bill 1096, which would have discouraged businesses from discriminating against the firearm industry by preventing Arizona taxpayer dollars from going to those that engage in such practices. This is not surprising, as Gov. Hobbs signaled her hostility towards Second Amendment rights last year by accepting the endorsements of national anti-gun groups. NRA thanks the lawmakers who worked to pass such a critical bill from the Legislature. This veto highlights how defending the Second Amendment is a never-ending task. Law-abiding gun owners must remain vigilant and continue to work to elect officials who will uphold their rights.”
The Senate passed Carroll’s bill back in February with a party-line 16-13 vote (with one Democrat member not voting). The House recently took up the proposal and cleared it with another party-line tally (31-29), paving the way for the legislation to be sent to the Governor’s Office.
During the legislative process, representatives from the Arizona Association of Counties, Chandler Chamber of Commerce, County Supervisors Association of Arizona, Arizona National Organization for Women, State Conference NAACP, and ACLU of Arizona registered in opposition to SB 1096.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 8, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona is one of the nation’s top Second Amendment states, and legislators are working to augment those constitutional protections – even though these new policies are highly likely to be vetoed by Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs should the bills clear both the House and Senate.
One of those pieces of legislation, HB2332, sponsored by freshman Representative Selina Bliss, deals with firearms safety training in Arizona schools. According to the House summary of the bill, HB2332 “requires school districts and charter schools to provide one or more firearms safety training sessions.”
The Arizona House also revealed that “statute currently states that the Arizona Game and Fish Department may provide training in the safe handling and use of bows or firearms for schools that request this instruction….In addition to voluntary training in the use of bows and firearms, statute allows any school district or charter school to offer a one semester, one credit elective course in firearm marksmanship designated as the Arizona Gun Safety Program Course.”
The legislation requires the district or charter school to inform the parents of the students two weeks prior to the training and provides an allowance for the students to be excused from the training should the parents request it.
HB2332 cleared the House Military Affairs & Public Safety Committee on Monday, February 6, with a party-line 8-7 vote. Republicans Payne (Chairman), Jones (Vice Chairman), Gillette, Harris, Hendrix, Marshall, Nguyen, and Wilmeth voted in favor of the bill. Democrats Blattman, Longdon, Peshlakai, Quiñonez, Sun, Travers, and Tsosie voted to table the bill.
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Representative Bliss explained why she introduced this bill:
“I introduced this bill to empower our youth to gain respect for and to be safe around firearms. The problem this bill is trying to solve is firearm accident prevention through education, so that kids are safe from firearm injuries and death. Most children are harmed by firearms when visiting a friend’s house and become curious about an unattended firearm. This one-time education in grades 6 through 12 is a small start, but will open dialogue between teachers, parents, and children on the safe handling and storage of firearms. I also introduced this bill because of my personal experience as a Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) instructor as well as my experience as the Safety and EMS Director of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association. In these roles I have come to see first-hand the value of education when it comes to empowering our youth.”
House Democrats vehemently opposed this legislation before and during committee debate. The Arizona House Democrats’ Twitter account tweeted “It’s back! BAD BILL ALERT” and bemoaned the failed amendment from Rep. Longdon “to make the firearms training opt-in instead of requiring students and parents to opt out.” Rep. Travers also stated, “If you want your Second Amendment rights then you take ownership of it. Don’t put the burden on somebody else.”
Representative Bliss told AZ Free News that Arizonans should support this legislation because “this is a non-controversial safety subject that uses age-appropriate curriculum to teach middle and high school children what to do if they come across an unattended firearm…. firearm safety should be viewed as a life skills course important for all kids, similar to mechanics, wood shop, or cooking courses.”
During last year’s legislative session, a similar bill was introduced by Representative Bliss’s current seatmate, Representative Nguyen. HB 2448 was co-sponsored by Representatives Blackman, Bolick, Fillmore, Hoffman, and Senator Boyer. On February 24, 2022, this legislation passed the Arizona House by a vote of 31-28, with one member not voting. It passed the Senate Education Committee with a party-line vote of 5-3 before being held from final passage and transmission to then-Governor Doug Ducey’s desk.
Representative Bliss has confidence that “this bill will be considered, thoughtfully discussed, and passed through both chambers.” She hopes “both chambers can work together to keep our children safe!”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Cheryl Todd | Jun 5, 2022 | Opinion
By Cheryl Todd |
I am heartbroken over the evil that has overcome Uvalde, Texas. And I, as a mom and a grandma who has grandchildren in the Litchfield Elementary School District, am outraged that our system has continued to fail us. Over the last twenty years, we’ve taught kids to hide, protect, and wait for help. More must be done.
Gun-free zones are dangerous, and it is time to protect schools like we protect airports, hospitals, courthouses, and banks and we must stop threats with equal or greater force. I support the Second Amendment and believe that education is the key to gun safety, not legislation. In an era of increased crime, reduced funding for police, and long response times – I must be my own first responder to protect myself, my family, and my community, which is why I carry a firearm. The evil in Uvalde was not caused by a gun, it was caused by a broken system that continues to push paper, policies, and legislation versus solving the root issue. We must heal the pain in our communities, strengthen families, and improve economic opportunities. Most importantly, it is TIME to fund meaningful programs that address mental health, safety, and firearm awareness and training.
Cheryl Todd is the Arizona State Director for the DC Project.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 21, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
For the second time this year, Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt have authored a “friend-of-the-court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a challenge to the constitutionally of a New York state law which severely restricts who can obtain a concealed carry permit.
On Tuesday, Brnovich, Schmitt, and the attorneys general of 24 other states joined in urging the justices to declare New York’s subjective-issue firearm license process as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett.
Forty-two states, including Arizona, have objective-issue systems where a concealed carry permit is issued to an individual who meets a certain set of objective criteria such as a background check, a mental health records review, fingerprinting, knowledge of applicable laws, and firearms training.
However, New Yorkers who want a concealed carry permit must demonstrate to a state worker some type of “special need” for self-protection outside their home that is greater than the average citizen. In effect, the law serves as a de facto ban on most New Yorkers who want to exercise their right to protect themselves when away from home.
The 26 signors of the brief believe they have “a unique perspective that should aid the Court in weighing the value and importance of the rights implicated by the questions presented.” In particular, they cite empirical evidence that legal concealed carry holders are significantly less likely than the general public to commit a crime.
In addition, a 2013 National Research Council study is cited, showing that crime victims who resist with a gun are less likely to suffer serious injury than victims who resist in other ways or who offer no resistance at all.
“Those who obtain firearms-carry permits are, and remain, overwhelmingly more law-abiding than the general population. That conclusion makes perfect sense, as permit holders must typically pass background and other checks prior to being issued a license under state regimes,” the brief argues.
Brnovich issued a statement after the brief was filed Tuesday.
“Law-abiding citizens should not require the consent of faceless bureaucrats to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. New York cannot override the Second Amendment or the natural right of self-preservation,” Brnovich said, adding he will continue to vigorously protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.
According to the attorney general’s office, Arizona implemented a licensed concealed carry regime in 1994. That year, the state experienced 10.5 murders per 100,000 people compared to the nationwide rate of 9 murders per 100,000.
Then in 2010, Arizona implemented a right-to-carry for all law-abiding citizens, even without a license. By 2016, Arizona’s murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000, even though more guns were being lawfully carried in the state.
Joining Arizona and Missouri are the state attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The July 20 brief follows one filed in February in which the 26 attorneys general argued why the U.S. Supreme Court should take up the case. The Justices announced in April that they will take up the case in its next term which starts Oct. 4, 2021.
The New York case, however, is not the only Second Amendment challenge Brnovich’s office has been involved with this year.
In April, he co-authored an amicus brief signed by nearly the attorneys general from nearly two dozen states urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Second Amendment by declaring California’s law limiting magazine capacities as unconstitutional.
Then in May, Brnovich led another multi-state coalition in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a New Jersey law which limits magazine capacities and requires gun owners to surrender to law enforcement certain magazines which are legal in 43 other states.
And last month, Brnovich led a coalition of 22 states in writing a brief to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in an effort to strike down a three-decade-old California law that bans popular rifles, even when kept in the home for self-defense.
