PHOENIX — A Senate panel voted 4-3 Thursday to allow judges to force some people to surrender their guns after a multi-step process that supporters say will protect due process rights.
Democrats say they won’t support the legislation, Senate Bill 1519, as is because of what they consider a glaring loophole. It doesn’t require universal background checks before a firearm can be sold, to ensure that people who should not have a gun can’t buy one.
Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce and Public Safety, said it was purposely designed that way.
“Pridefully, mind you, I’m A-plus rated by the NRA,” he told dozens of people who came out to testify.
“I intend on keeping it that way,” Smith said. “I am not going to run a piece of legislation that I think runs afoul to our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights.”
Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, who raised the question of expanding existing requirements for background checks on potential buyers, said she disagrees with how Smith sees the issue.
“I don’t think we’re asking to take away gun rights,” she said. “I support responsible gun owners.”
Gerry Hills, founder of Arizonans for Gun Safety, was more direct in her response. “You may be proud of your NRA rating,” she told Smith. “But this bill rates a D-minus.”
She said 40 percent of gun sales are unregulated, not subject to background checks. “Cash, carry, no questions asked,” Hills said.
SB 1519 contains provisions proponents say will help reduce gun violence, particularly at schools.
It would allow individuals, including family members, significant others and school administrators, to file legal papers asking a judge to order someone picked up if they pose a “credible threat” of death or serious physical injury, or if there was an actual or attempted act of violence in the prior six months intended to cause death or serious physical injury to self or others.
A judge who determined there is enough in the complaint to pursue the matter could order police to detain that person for an initial hearing where the person can be present, have counsel and make his or her own case.
A judge who determined there is “clear and convincing” evidence of a threat could issue a Severe Threat Order of Protection, or STOP, allowing that person to be held for evaluation. The person would be required to surrender their firearms for up to 21 days, a period a judge could extend. Having a gun while under a STOP order would subject the person to felony charges.
In proposing the measure last month, Gov. Doug Ducey said he wants to be sure that those who should not have access to guns are kept from obtaining them. He wants changes to the system that requires courts and others to report convictions to a national database, used by federal firearms dealers to determine whether they can sell a gun to a customer.
But Arizona law does not require such checks for personal sales, including people selling one or more firearms at gun shows. Democratic senators contend it does no good to have someone declared a “prohibited possessor” if that person can still buy a gun anyway.
Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Tempe, noted Florida enacted its own school-safety plan in the wake of the killing of 17 students at a Parkland high school. The Arizona plan does not contain some of the key provisions in the new Florida law, including raising the age to possess a weapon to 21 and a ban on “bump stocks,” which can convert a semi-automatic weapon to be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.
Also, Bowie said someone subject to a court order in Florida must turn over guns immediately rather than 24 hours later.
That last point got the attention of Deputy Pima County Attorney Kathleen Mayer. She said the legislation permits someone to have his or her guns for 24 hours “after a judge has just said, ‘Oh, you’re an imminent threat to kill yourself or somebody else.’ ‘’
The legislation also contains proposals aimed directly at school safety, including:
- Age-appropriate school safety training, including “active shooter” drills;
- Campus visitors having to provide identification;
- A central telephone hotline for students, teachers and others to notify of potential threats;
- Reporting incidents, as appropriate, to police and parents.
- Schools would need a safety plan, which Smith said could include arming school employees.
Dave Kopp of the Arizona Citizens Defense League said there appears to be too much focus on guns and not enough on school safety. He wants to arm staff, secure school perimeters and have stronger doors and windows, “things like that to make the building a harder target.”
Tucsonan Ken Rineer, president of Gun Owners of Arizona, who has advocated the arming of teachers, had similar objections to what he considers infringements on gun rights.
“This bill is more about seizing firearms than about treating mental illness,” he told lawmakers.
Conversely, Bowie pointed out that some things Ducey first proposed have fallen off the table, which he considers unfortunate. For example, the governor sought to hold adults responsible when children get guns, and to deny permits to carry concealed weapons to those with outstanding arrest warrants.
Attorney Anni Foster, representing Ducey’s office, said the governor jettisoned those provisions to come up with a “workable” bill that could get enough Republican votes, given Democrats’ opposition.
Will Gaona, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, objected to a proposal to put more police “school resource officers” into schools.
He said putting police into schools ends up entangling them in discipline issues, including some that should be handled by administrators instead of becoming criminal matters. Minorities are far more likely to end up arrested than others, Gaona said.
Smith reacted angrily, saying that armed officers are a key way of dealing with an armed criminal on campus. Police are usually “minutes away” from an active shooting situation, he said.
“You have to have someone meeting force with force,” he said.
