AZ Dems revive red flag gun law push

He failed, rebuffed by the GOP majority in the Legislature.

"Politics intervened,'' the governor told Capitol Media Services at the time. And that ended such efforts for the balance of his administration through 2022.

Now Democrats, in control of the House and Senate for the first time in decades, are exploring whether they can finish, in some form, what Ducey started.

It's not like Democrats haven't been trying ever since his efforts faltered.

In fact, some have a special connection to the issue of firearm violence and, in particular, the harm that comes from unstable individuals who have access to weapons.

Rep. Randy Friese of Tucson introduced bills two different times. He's a trauma surgeon who treated Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and other victims of the Jan. 8, 2011 mass shooting at a constituent event outside a Safeway just north of Tucson.

That shooting has become a textbook argument by proponents of why Arizona needs laws to take guns out of some people's hands before tragedy occurs.

Evidence later showed that the gunman was a known risk, with multiple interactions with police at Pima Community College, classroom outbursts, and even his suspension until he got a mental health evaluation — one he opted not to get.

There was also a bid by Rep. Daniel Hernandez, also of Tucson, who, on that 2011 day, was working as an intern for Giffords, applied first aid and helped save her life.

And Rep. Jennifer Longdon of Phoenix, who was paralyzed in a 2004 shooting, made three different attempts on her own to get lawmakers to at least debate whether to put something in Arizona law to allow people to petition to take guns away from those considered dangerous.

All those lawmakers are now gone. And none of their bills even got a hearing.

Rep. Nancy Gutierrez of Tucson sponsored the 2025 version, though her proposal, too, went nowhere after it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Prescott Valley Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen, who refused to even give it a hearing.

And even a narrowed-down version crafted by Attorney General Kris Mayes and proposed by Rep. Stacey Travers of Phoenix, focused on threats to educational institutions, had no better luck with a proposal this year: No hearing for it was scheduled in the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Sen. Wendy Rogers of Flagstaff.

Now everything has changed: Democrats are in charge of both the House and Senate, with a Democrat as governor. And both Gutierrez and Travers said they intend to pursue changes when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

There will be opposition.

Any new bill — like the ones that failed before — will run up against the Arizona Citizens Defense League, which defines itself as a grassroots organization with the goal "to stop bad bills (and) get pro-gun-rights bills enacted. It has partnered with Republican legislators for years to successfully beat back this kind of law.

But the group may now lack the votes at the Capitol to kill any plan.

At the heart of the issue is what procedures the state should have to be able to take guns from people before they kill or injure someone else or even themselves.

The version sponsored by Gutierrez would have allowed certain adults to petition a court to issue what has been called a "severe threat order of protection'' to preclude an individual from possession of a firearm. That would have to be based on a "credible threat'' of death or serious physical injury that is intended to result in death.

And, in that version, a STOP order also could be issued to prevent "cruel mistreatment of an animal.''

A judge would review the petition and any other relevant information, like recent credible threats, cruel mistreatment of an animal, known "dangerous mental health issues,'' conviction of a violent offense, conviction for misuse of a firearm, and even abuse of a controlled substance or alcohol "if the evidence demonstrates that the abuse is a contributing factor to the respondent's dangerousness or violence.''

At that point, a court could issue an order requiring the person to immediately surrender all firearms.

But there also would have to be a hearing within 14 days, where individuals could present evidence on their own behalf and argue their right to bear arms should not be restricted. Then, a judge would have two options: Extend the order up to a year — it could be renewed after that — or let the STOP order self-destruct.

Michael Infanzon, lobbyist for the Citizens Defense League, said there's a case to be made for allowing judges to evaluate whether someone should have a firearm. But what's being proposed is not acceptable.

The problem, he said, is that ability of others to go into court and — without even notifying the person involved or a chance to mount a defense — get an order allowing police to take all their weapons.

"Why would you infringe on somebody's not only right to keep and bear arms but Fourth Amendment rights,'' Infanzon said. And that, he said, is subject to abuse.

Consider, he said, the ability of anyone to file a petition claiming that someone they know who owns guns is considering suicide.

"Technically, they can do a no-knock raid on your house, take all your firearms, and lock you up for 48 hours, without you going in front of a judge,'' Infanzon said.

That possibility of being locked up, before even getting a chance to go to court, actually was included in Ducey's original plan.

It is not in what Gutierrez proposed last year. And she said whether anything like that is included in versions going forward is still being worked out with others, including organizations like Giffords, co-founded by the former congresswoman, which is active in helping states craft laws it says will promote gun safety.

Infanzon said, though, that the only acceptable form of taking anyone's weapons would be if there is first an investigation and then a court hearing. And at that point there would have to be sufficient evidence produced to convince a judge that there is "probable cause'' to find the person is a danger to self or others and should not have access to a weapon.

"You have a right to stand in front of your accuser,'' he said.

Well, not always, according to Lindsay Nichols. She is the policy director for Giffords.

"The courts have found, time and time again, that these sorts of temporary removals for the short period of time — after evidence is presented and a judge looks at that evidence and makes a decision — that they can be fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment because of those parameters,'' she said.

Mayes agreed.

"It's not necessarily permanent,'' she said, with that requirement for a full-blown hearing within 14 days to determine whether to extend or dissolve the order. "We believe there's a high bar for approval to make sure that the law is not being used to take guns away unnecessarily.''

Much of what continues to drive calls for some preventative action like STOP orders has been the series of shootings at public schools. It was even behind what Ducey proposed nearly a decade ago.

He cited what were, until that time, the deadliest school shootings of the past 20 years, including the 2012 incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 27 died.

"In five out of five of the most deadly school shootings, the killers displayed warning signs of being a potential threat to themselves or others,'' he said in releasing the plan. "This stunning fact illustrates the need for a legal tool to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.''

And then there was the 2018 shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

"Nikolas Cruz had 39 visits from social services, was identified by name to the FBI, and actually posted on YouTube that this was something that he wanted to do,'' Ducey said.

"There was nothing they could do,'' he said. "There was no law that allowed them to do anything.''

The version of the bill crafted by Mayes and pushed by Travers is specifically focused on school safety. But one thing that could provoke debate is the question of exactly who could go to court to seek a STOP order.

The Travers proposal has a fairly extensive list, including peace officers, certain relatives by blood or marriage, someone who resided in the same house during the last six months, and any individual who has been involved in a romantic or sexual relationship with the person. And people who run or attend educational institutions where there has been a threat in the last six months also could seek a court order.

But that same broad list is at least part of what caused the failure of what Ducey was pushing. Legislative Republicans argued that only peace officers should be able to seek court orders, arguing that anyone else who questions whether someone should not have access to a firearm should file a police report.

Ducey, for his part, said such a narrow interpretation to require police involvement would have made no sense.

"What laws have been broken if you're scared of someone?'' he asked, with many situations not rising to the level to where police would have authority to investigate.