Organizations that say they want to stop gun violence in Arizona announced a plan Sept. 13 to convince state lawmakers to impose a statewide ban on the sale or manufacture of certain semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines.

But at the Legislature, a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat both said any such proposal is assured an early death.

Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and a vocal supporter of state budget control and such issues as restricting benefits for illegal immigrants, said he thinks serious debate on such a bill “won’t ever get started.”

Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-15, an advocate of increased spending on government social-welfare programs, said, “I don’t give that type of legislation the slightest chance of passage in the Legislature.”

Mr. Pearce called the issue of gun regulation “a raging battle” and said the ultimate agenda of some proponents of gun regulation is to eliminate guns entirely.

“Some simply want to ban the Second Amendment, to ban freedom,” he said.

Arizonans for Gun Safety, NAILEM (Neighborhood Activists Inter-Linked Empowerment Movement), and Arizona Interfaith, along with some local physicians and shooting victims, said they will press for legislation that would be stricter than the 1994 federal ban, which outlawed the manufacture and sale of 19 semiautomatic military-style “assault” rifles. The federal ban expired Sept. 13. It would have required an act of Congress to keep it alive.

Backers of the Arizona ban held a press conference on the Capitol Mall to announce their proposal.

Group Releases Draft Legislation

Hildy Saizow, a board member of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said her group plans to talk with legislators soon. She distributed copies of a draft of the proposed bill, which is based on a firearms ban passed by the California Legislature in 1999.

One thing the ban would do, said Gerry Anderson, a member of Arizonans for Gun Safety, is prohibit the manufacture and sale of weapons that are “substantially identical” to specific models identified in the legislation. There was such a clause in the federal ban, she said, but this one will be stricter.

Arizonans for Gun Safety also wants legal owners of military-style assault weapons to register their weapons with the state by a specific date if the ban passes, after which the possession of a non-registered weapon would be a crime.

“We, as a state, need to hang together and make a change,” said Donna Neil, director of NAILEM, an activist organization. “We want to take no one’s rights away. We don’t want to infringe on anybody, but what we do want to do is protect our communities, protect our children.”

Besides banning the manufacture and sale of 19 specific guns, the now-expired federal law halted the production of ammunition magazines or clips designed to hold more than 10 bullets and prohibited manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following features:

Rifles

• Folding/Telescopic stock

• Protruding pistol grip

• Bayonet mount

• Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor

• Grenade launcher

Pistols

• Magazine outside clip

• Threaded muzzle

• Barrel shroud

• Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more

• Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns

• Folding/telescopic stock

• Protruding pistol grip

• Detachable magazine capacity

• Fixed magazine capacity greater than five rounds

Weapons and ammunition clips manufactured before Sept. 13, 1994 were grandfathered in under the law and could be possessed and sold.

Opponents: Ban Was ‘Cosmetic’

Gun-rights supporters say the federal ban did not reduce crime or remove any weapons from the street.

“It was a cosmetic bill. It addressed cosmetic issues such as where the pistol grip was, whether or not the gun had a bayonet lug,” said Gary Christensen, a competitive shooter and shooting range safety officer from Tempe. “I mean, I don’t think there’s been a whole lot of bayonet attacks recently.”

For Mr. Christensen, any increase in firearm restriction is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to abolishing all guns.

“Basically, you get down to the point where you say, any gun that fires a bullet is lethal, and therefore let’s just ban all guns,” he said. “Now, they denied that that’s the program, but that’s the criteria they would set.”

Rick DeStephens of Glendale said the ban was largely ineffective.

“There is no ban — I bought my AR-15 (one of the banned guns) last spring,” he said. “They’re fighting to keep a ban that did nothing but ban cosmetics.”

Nationally syndicated columnist Clarence Page, in a column published in The Arizona Republic Sept. 16, said those on both sides of the debate, from the National Rifle Association to gun-control advocates like Sarah and Jim Brady, agree that the federal ban was not effective. Mr. Page wrote that was because “the NRA’s surrogates in Congress watered it down.”

For Heather Grossman of Paradise Valley, one of those present at the news conference, the issue is not partial firearms control. She wants a complete prohibition on gun ownership.

Her former husband, Ron Samuels, has been charged with orchestrating a 1997 shooting that left her a quadriplegic and nearly killed her. She says she was clinically dead before paramedics brought her back to life.

“I’m here speaking for the victims that aren’t alive,” she said.

The gun that was used to shoot her in a drive-by shooting in Boca Raton, Florida, she said, is now back in circulation, where she fears it will be used to hurt someone else.

“Guns have to be banned,” Ms. Grossman said. “We need to help our community come together and not when it’s too late. You should be outraged now.”

Rev. Paul Eppinger of Arizona Interfaith said the same qualities that make terrorists also make murderers: an out-of-control ego, immaturity and access to weapons. Our country, he said, should be at a point in its development when violence is not necessary or accepted.

“My friends,” he said, “we are a civilized people. We don’t need to brag about the weapons we have and brag about how big the guns we have are. A civilized people does not need to solve differences… with weapons. A civilized people can begin to talk and negotiate and work.”

He proposed extending the ban on military-style assault weapons forever, adding that, “for some of us, that would mean all guns would be banned from our society.

Lawmaker: Legislation Won’t Pass

Mr. Pearce said the proponents of the state ban “are just anti-gun folks” looking to take something away from both the federal and state constitutions.

“Sometimes really good people with really good intentions do so much damage to the Constitution,” he said. “It’s like free speech — it isn’t just (for) speech that you like, it’s all speech.”

Removing freedoms, Mr. Pearce said, won’t end violence. Enforcing laws, punishing wrongdoers, education and strong families are more effective.

“That’s what works — not silly laws stripping people of their freedoms,” he said. “We don’t need more laws, we need stronger families.”

Mr. Brotherton said restrictions on military-style assault rifles are a good idea, but said a firearms ban would never gather the support
it would need to pass.

“I’d certainly be willing to look at some restrictions in that area,” he said, “but I don’t give that type of legislation the slightest chance of passage in the Legislature.”

He said it took considerable effort last session to prevent what he called “an NRA attempt to put guns in bars.” He was referring to S1210, which would have lifted state law’s existing prohibition of firearms in bars.

“The most anybody can expect is defending the more reasonable restrictions on firearms we have,” he said, citing the prohibition of weapons in courtrooms, bars and the Capitol as examples.

A gun owner himself – he said he has shot guns since he was a child – Mr. Brotherton said there is a difference of opinion on gun control even among those who use and own guns.

“I’m not a person, like the folks who walk around town with a gun and feel the need to do it. It’s just a different view of things,” he said. “The fundamental question is, do you believe…there are reasonable restrictions with regard to the possession of firearms? I believe there are.

“Right now, in the state Legislature, those that disagree with me outnumber those that do.”

For Mr. DeStephens, the Glendale gun enthusiast, the issue is about personal liberty, freedom and his ability to legally own firearms.

“I don’t need to justify my possessions,” he said. —