The old void came into view Feb. 14.
On one side: Legitimate concerns about gun safety.
On the other: Exaggerated perceptions of infringed rights.
That day, the news came slowly out of Florida: Shots fired in a high school. Mass injuries. Eventually, we learned 17 people had been killed. And later it emerged that the gunman had been a troubled ex-student living in a new family’s home, a home where the parents thought they had his guns locked up, but didn’t.
Later that day, an Arizona legislative committee heard testimony about a bill that would repeal a state agency’s effort to keep guns out of the hands of potentially troubled youths — those in foster homes. The rules require that foster families’ guns be stored securely, so that the youths under the state’s care are safer.
Would they see the connection — that the case in Florida showed one big reason for the rules in Arizona? Of course not.
Those who control our state government have shown for years that they will expand gun rights into every nook and cranny of our lives, and will reject even common-sense, constitutional efforts to preserve people’s safety from them.
So it was with HB 2535, a bill that is still marching toward becoming law.
It aims to eliminate a small section of the 42-page rulebook for foster-home safety. The rules state, for example, that all medication must be kept in a locked cabinet. Pools must have 5-foot fences with self-latching gates that swing outward. Extension cords may not be used on a permanent basis.
In other words, the Department of Child Safety has a lot of picky rules for foster homes, intended to keep foster kids safe and protect the state from liability. State law gives them the right to establish these rules, and the homes are inspected.
Among the rules are several governing firearms. Guns must be stored unloaded; they must have trigger locks; they must be kept in a tamper-proof, locked container; and ammunition must be locked separately.
Take a look at the news on any given day, and you’ll see why. On Monday a 15-year-old came into possession of a handgun in Sierra Vista. Another teen had apparently stolen the gun. They and a couple of friends decided to play Russian roulette, police said, and the 15-year-old lost. He shot himself dead.
This is not an isolated incident. In the last few years in Southern Arizona, we’ve had shooters as young as 3 years old. The annual Arizona Child Fatality Review report, produced by Tucson Dr. Mary Ellen Rimsza, reported there were 36 firearms deaths of children in 2016, up from 28 in 2015. A third of those deaths were by guns owned by the children’s parents, and 31 percent of the weapons used were insecurely stored.
But Rep. Kevin Payne, the sponsor of the bill that would eliminate DCS’ gun-storage rules for foster families, is right about something. A separate state law makes it illegal for a state agency, counties or cities, to restrict the possession, transfer or storage of firearms.
“It’s currently not being followed,” Payne told the committee about the law. “That’s why we have this bill.”
“Foster parents are just like any other parents in the state of Arizona,” Payne said.
“They should have Second Amendment rights just like everyone else. That’s what I’m trying to accomplish here. They should not be restricted.”
To which I say, “Like hell.”
Foster parents are different because they are taking care of children on behalf of the state. We owe those children, who have been removed from their homes by the state, an extra layer of security, which is why that whole handbook exists.
But more importantly, the rules are known in advance by the foster parents, and they leave the parents’ right to own guns intact, while also preserving the safety of children who are especially vulnerable.
As Bahney Dedolph, of the Arizona Council of Human Service Providers, put it that day: “Children who are in out-of-home care because they’ve experienced trauma along the way are more likely to experience depression and suicidal ideation. When a person has access to a gun, they are more likely to die of suicide. Smart gun storage reduces child deaths.”
So, one way to deal with the inconveniences imposed by the rule would be to negotiate changes. A DCS attorney at the hearing, Kathryn Blades, said the department is open to ideas, including those that would make it easier for foster parents to access loaded guns for self-defense. That makes sense.
But legally speaking, there is still the problem that DCS’ sensible rules violate state law. The logical solution to this problem is not to eliminate the safety rules — the GOP legislators’ instinctive reaction — but to enshrine the rules, or at least DCS’ right to make them, in law.
That’s the lesson of Feb. 14 — that easy access to firearms by a troubled youth is dangerous and should be prevented. But this being Arizona, our legislators are trigger-happy when it comes to even sensible, constitutional safety measures, and they missed the point entirely.
