Quantcast
Home / legislature / House GOP rejects Dem attempt to forbid armed lawmakers

House GOP rejects Dem attempt to forbid armed lawmakers

House-of-representatives-620

Saying they’re exempt, state representatives voted Tuesday to allow themselves to carry their guns onto the House floor.

On a party-line vote, the Republican majority beat back a proposal by Democrats to enact a new rule to forbid any person from entering the House building while armed. The only exception would be for peace officers “acting in their official capacities.”

Rep. Randall Friese, D-Tucson, pointed out that Arizona law makes it a crime to bring a weapon into a public building if there is a “no guns” sign at the door. And he pointed out there are such signs at the public entrances.

“Your constituents do not have the right to bring a deadly weapon into this building,” Friese told his colleagues. “What we’re asking ourselves today is should we move ourselves above the law.”

But Rep. Noel Campbell, R-Prescott, said this isn’t about legislators saying they can ignore the law.

“We have a special exemption,” he said, with the Legislature as a separate branch of government entitled to write its own rules.

And Campbell said he’s quite comfortable with the fact that some legislators may be armed.

“We’re a safer building with people not knowing if we’re armed or not armed,” he said.

The debate arose after Democrats discovered that House Speaker David Gowan had quietly decided to allow legislators to have their guns.

House GOP spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham insisted that did not make lawmakers into law breakers.

She pointed out that Gowan had removed the “no guns” sign at the back door of the building, the one not available to the public. Therefore, Grisham said, no one was flouting the law.

But Rep. Lisa Otondo, D-Yuma, had a different take on the issue.

Otondo said she has nothing against weapons, boasting of her 20-gauge shotgun.

“And I like a nice Sunday morning with a cup of coffee out at the range,” she said.

“I believe in our right to own weapons,” Otondo continued. “But that’s not what this is about.”

Otondo said she believes the statute banning weapons in public buildings means what it says, without exception for lawmakers. But she said there’s also the issue of what guns do to the demeanor at the House.

“Some of our members feel threatened because others are carrying guns,” she said.

Rep. John Allen, R-Phoenix, a native New Yorker, told colleagues he has never owned a gun, nor ever shot one. But Allen said he understands the desire of some legislators to be armed.

“We are increasingly a target of people with bad intentions,” he said. Allen said that justifies lawmakers arming themselves.

“As individuals, if that’s what you choose to do, you should be able to defend yourself,” Allen said, pointing out there are no metal detectors or other security measures at the House entrances to keep people with guns from getting into the gallery that overlooks the House floor.

“This place is wide open,” he said. “This can be a scary place.”

Rep. Charlene Fernandez, D-Yuma, disputed that contention.

“I do not think this is a scary place,” she said. And Fernandez said she believes that Gowan’s policy puts lawmakers “above the law.”

Campbell, however, said there’s one big difference between the public and lawmakers like him: an election.

“All of us members have been vetted,” he said.

“We’ve been vetted by the people,” Campbell continued. “We’ve gone through many, many processes just to be in this House.”

There is a similar policy, sort of, across the courtyard. Senate President Andy Biggs said there’s an informal “don’t ask, don’t tell” understanding: Senators don’t divulge whether they’re armed and Senate leadership doesn’t ask them.

3 comments

  1. “Rep. Randall Friese, D-Tucson, pointed out that Arizona law makes it a crime to bring a weapon into a public building if there is a “no guns” sign at the door”

    No it does not. It says …

    “Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor’s agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01”

    Speaker Gowan is the operator of the House of Representatives. Is Rep. Friese seriously maintaining that he cannot verbally overrule a sign in his building? Would Dr. Friese allow a nurse that he had given written orders to on a previous day disobey his verbal orders today?

    Can we stop being ridiculous now?

  2. But he’s not “verbally overruling” the sign. He specifically removed the one at the back door, with his publicist saying that means those who enter through the back door have no notice that guns are not allowed. (Never mind lawmakers who enter through the front.)

    Which raises another question: Can the operator of other public buildings pick and choose who has to obey those signs and who does not? Or is there an equal protection/selective enforcement issue here?

  3. He has absolutely verbally overruled the sign, feel free to ask him. If members have been given permission by the operator, or even via the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of other buildings, the sign means zip. Again, the sign does not outweigh the stated rules of person who posted it.

    Re. other operators, they can absolutely pick and choose, just like private property owners do. The law is fairly clear on that, or as clear as laws get anyway.

    Is there an equal protection issue there? Maybe. Feel free to take it to court, argue that gun owners should all be treated equally and see how that works out for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs at a press conference on COVID-19 earlier this year with Gov. Doug Ducey. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

Ducey, Hobbs at odds over election procedures for nursing homes residents

The top elected state officials of the two major parties are squabbling over election procedures, with the ability of some nursing homes and other centers ...