PA Bill Number: HB335
Title: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons.
Description: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons. ...
Last Action: Removed from table
Last Action Date: May 1, 2024
Senate panel led by SCW lawmaker votes to block enforcement of certain federal gun laws :: 02/11/2015
Declaring state law to be above all others, a Senate panel voted Tuesday to both block federal gun laws they believe violate the Second Amendment and punish the city of Tucson for enacting its own restrictions.
They also agreed to bar state and local governments from helping any federal agency that collects metadata like phone and email records without a warrant. Any official who cooperated would be forever barred from holding public office.
And if that isn't enough, the same committee declared that county sheriffs are supreme, meaning they can arrest federal officials -- including police -- who try to arrest someone or seize property without first getting their consent. And county attorneys who refuse to bring charges of kidnapping for arrests done without the sheriff's permission would be subject to prosecution themselves by the state attorney general for "official misconduct.''
All four votes, along party lines in the Republican-controlled Committee on Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility, follow arguments that the state has to step in to block individual rights from being trampled.
Potentially the most far reaching is SB 1384, drawing a line in the sand over which federal employees and officials dare not step without first seeking local permission. Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, said it simply recognizes the supremacy of the state over the federal government -- and of the sheriffs as each county's chief constitutional and law enforcement officer.
"No police power is granted to anyone in the county without first consent of the sheriff of that county,'' she said. Burges said sheriffs have a duty to protect the federal and state constitutions.
"And it is equally a duty of the sheriff to protect and defend the citizens' business of his county from any and all abuses of constitutional rights and freedoms, even in the name of law enforcement,'' she said.
SB 1384 would make it illegal for any federal employee, including a law enforcement official who has not been first given permission by the sheriff, to make an arrest, conduct a search or seize property.
Exceptions are provided for incidents on federal lands or where the officer has witnessed a crime that requires immediate arrest. And it would not apply to customs or border patrol officers.
Burges said there are things already happening in Arizona that are "potential flash points.''
She said federal agencies have come into the state, closed roads and in one instance in Greenlee County, even confiscated cattle and sold them at auction in a dispute between the U.S. Forest Service and the rancher.
That incident never got to the boiling point reached last year when Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had refused to pay the rent for his cattle grazing on federal land, had a multi-day standoff with federal agents. Burges said her bill, rather than exacerbating such a situation, could actually prevent it by ensuring federal officials coordinate with the local sheriff before doing anything similar here.
Burges also sees her legislation as a way for the state to fight back against things like the federal government requiring that wolves be accommodated in Arizona.
She said these are issues to be litigated in federal court. And two other Senate committees already have voted to appropriate $250,000 to fight the expansion of the Mexican gray wolf program in Arizona.
But Burges said there already are problems with wolves stalking children. She said her legislation, in affirming the right of the sheriff to defend Arizonans, would assure deputies they could shoot a wolf without fear of a $50,000 federal fine.
The broader bill on gun rights approved Tuesday, SB 1330, was crafted by Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City.
"The intent of the law is to allow Arizona to function under Arizona's own power and not allow any current or future federal laws that go into effect the Second Amendment to affect people who live in Arizona,'' she said.
The measure makes it illegal for any public official or employee to "enforce any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.'' It also criminalizes providing assistance to any federal agency trying to enforce a federal law or rule.
But it's also would cut off state aid to communities that adopt ordinances or rules to comply with federal law that are found by a court to violate the Second Amendment. Dale Wiebusch, lobbyist for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said that puts them in an "untenable situation.''
He said a city may adopt an ordinance in compliance with a federal law, only to learn years later, after a court hearing, that federal law is unenforceable. Wiebusch said it would be unfair to cut off state aid for something city officials had no way of knowing at the time would be found illegal.
Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, was unsympathetic, saying he believes the federal government is a creation of -- and subservient to -- the states.
The panel separately targeted Tucson in SB 1291, voting to punish any community enacting its own gun laws found to conflict with state statutes.
State law already bars cities from enacting regulations stricter than state statutes. But Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said Tucson has ignored that preemption.
One ordinance allows police to request a breath sample from someone who has negligently discharged a firearm and appears intoxicated. A second requires people to report the loss or theft of a gun.
In a formal legal opinion two years ago, then-Attorney General Tom Horne said both measures are pre-empted by state law. City officials said Horne's opinion is just that, and both measures remain on the books.
This measure would allow any individual or membership is "adversely affected'' to sue, with the ability to collect legal fees and damages up to $100,000. SB 1291 also would let a court assess penalties of up to $5,000 on elected or appointed government officials who knowingly and willfully violate state law., with that person subject to removal from office.
Wiebusch said local councils should be able to enact local laws that their constituents want. Smith said that argument is "irrelevant.''
"Frankly, they could want a complete repeal of the Second Amendment,'' he said. "If it is direct violation of state law and state constitution law, I don't care what they want.''
Philosophical issues aside, Wiebusch questioned whether lawmakers could mandate that an elected official be ousted.
"I don't think you can fire the mayor,'' he told lawmakers. "I think you have to go through a recall.''
A similar measure was vetoed last year by then-Gov. Jan Brewer who called the measure unnecessary, saying there already are ways for people to challenge local laws they believe to be illegal.
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/valleyandstate/article_79cb1d10-b1b4-11e4-acc0-ffcb5692079c.html
