Arizona lawmakers OK bill foes claim will lead to shooting of migrants

PHOENIX — The fate of legislation that foes claim would lead to the shooting of migrants is now in the hands of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

But what the legislation actually would do — if the governor does not wield her veto stamp — is less than clear.

On paper, House Bill 2843, approved by the Republican-led House and Senate on party-line votes, would expand existing law that allows individuals to use or threaten to use physical force to keep someone from trespassing on a premise.

That law, also known as the Castle Doctrine — based on the concept that someone’s home is their castle — allows the use of deadly physical force, “only in defense of himself or third persons.”

Rep. Justin Heap, R-Mesa, said the current law appears to apply only to someone’s home or yard. The change he wants would expand that to cover someone’s farm or ranch and other buildings on that property, he said.

But Heap, in describing the measure to a House committee, specifically mentioned an “increasingly larger number of migrants or human traffickers moving across farm and ranch land.’’

And his measure comes as Nogales rancher George Alan Kelly is on trial in Santa Cruz County, accused of shooting to death an unarmed migrant crossing his property.

It’s a damning fact, said Sen. Anna Hernandez, D-Phoenix, that when Heap first described his bill to the House committee, he said his legislation would fix a “loophole’’ in the law about defense of premises.

Hernandez said Heap’s description leaves only one conclusion — that his measure is designed to provide some leeway for ranchers who go a step farther than chasing off trespassers and kill people crossing their property.

Heap told colleagues in February, “If a farmer owns 10,000 acres of farmland, his home may be a half a mile away from where he is. And if he sees someone on his land, can he approach them and trespass them from his property?’’ (By “trespass them,” he apparently meant tell them they are illegally trespassing.)

But when the bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Heap insisted it has nothing to do with shooting migrants.

Hernandez isn’t buying it. She told Heap that reading his bill leads to the conclusion HB 2843 is meant to allow more people to use deadly force on their ranches.

Heap said that’s belied by the actual wording of the proposal.

“This bill has nothing to do with migrants,’’ he told Hernandez. He said it doesn’t change any other laws that deal with the question of when individuals can use deadly physical force.

So why, then, Hernandez asked, did he specifically mention the “increasingly larger number of migrants or human traffickers moving across farm and ranch land’’ when promoting the measure?

Heap said he was just reflecting on something that occurred the day before. “We had had the sheriff from Yuma County do a presentation,’’ he said. “And the sheriff had discussed the problem they had with farmers with migrants basically destroying the crops by crossing over their fields.’’

So, he said, there is a link — at least from that perspective.

“I said this would be a concern: If you’re a farmer are you allowed to go out to a migrant who’s crossing your field and trespass them from your property and tell them they have to leave?’’ Heap said.

But that is the extent of his bill, he said.

“You wouldn’t be justified in killing them unless they use physical force against you,’’ Heap said.

He said he used the example of problems faced by ranchers in explaining his bill only because that’s what lawmakers had heard the day before.

A lobbyist for the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, testifying against the legislation before a Senate panel, conceded that, by itself, HB 2843 wouldn’t legalize the indiscriminate killing of those walking across someone’s property.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“Someone who has used deadly physical force against someone who is trespassing would still need to demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force had been necessary to protect themselves or others,’’ said the lobbyist, Marilyn Rodriguez. “The physical force used cannot have been excessive.’’

But she said it’s clear HB 2843 would expand where that deadly force can be used — assuming it is justified — from situations now limited to what occurs inside someone’s house or immediate yard, to anywhere on a person’s property, even if it’s a multi-acre ranch. If nothing else, Rodriguez said just the discussion of expanding what constitutes defense of property to now include ranches and farms is dangerous.

She said the legislation comes amid increasingly hostile comments about migrants, most of whom, Rodriguez said, are not smugglers but are fleeing violence and persecution. HB 2843 sends a bad message, she said.

“It is horrifying to imagine a world in which this bill becomes law in which people suddenly get the message that extra-judicial killings are now on the table and that the law will be on their side if they shoot first,’’ she said.

That drew an angry reaction from Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who told Rodriguez all that is based on claims the legislation would make shooting migrants legally permissible. He said those claims are fanned by what he called erroneous news reports.

“That is a lie,’’ he said. “And it’s been all over the newspapers.’’

Still, Kavanagh acknowledged, the legislation could have have an effect — and lead to more shootings — despite what he says is its clear wording.

“Some people may be killed because of misinformation gun control people have spread all over the place,’’ he said. “And decent people who are misled by that lie will wind up being prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter because they thought, based on things said to them by gun control advocates, that they can shoot to kill in their house.’’

That provoked a reaction from Hernandez.

“You said it may cost a few lives, a few people may die,’’ she told Kavanagh. “I hope that we’re not saying that that is OK.’’

Hernandez said that already is happening across the country. “People are shooting, people are killing people,’’ she said. “That’s why this bill is such a concern.’’

Kavanagh retorted, “Sometimes it’s good to shoot people when they’re going to shoot you illegally. Sometimes it’s bad to shoot people because you’re a criminal or you listen to gun control (advocates) who misled you into thinking the Castle Doctrine, if extended outside or even inside, let’s you shoot somebody traipsing through your house at night.’’

Anne Thompson, a volunteer representing Mothers Demand Action, a group that advocates for what it calls sensible gun control laws, questioned the need to create a special expansion of the right to use deadly force.

“Arizona already has a self-defense law that allows the use of deadly force when a person is threatened,’’ she told lawmakers. Thompson said that includes “a shoot-first law that allows people to shoot and kill others even if they know they could possibly safely walk away from the confrontation.’’

She also said Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos is opposed to the measure.

In a February interview with KVOA-TV Nanos said the measure amounts to allowing the use of deadly force when someone commits a misdemeanor such as trespassing. He cited a situation where an individual is playing ball and the ball goes into someone’s yard.

“I may go and retrieve the ball, and you can shoot me?’’ Nanos said.

“It’s not just nuts, it’s absolutely ridiculous and totally unnecessary,’’ he said. “I think it’s racist. I think it’s targeting.’’

Tucson Mayor Regina Romero added her opposition in a post on X on Wednesday, calling the measure “dangerous and downright racist’’ and urging the governor to veto it.

“Granting property owners the right to shoot trespassers, claiming self-defense, is a heartless dehumanizing act of violence,’’ she wrote.