Seven new Arizona gun laws effective July 23

Bookmark and Share

Arizona has enacted all these gun laws, mostly excellent, casting doubt on the “news” media, which persists in quoting politicians, who insist we have been unable to enact any guns laws, instead of digging and publishing facts.

State after state has enacted gun laws, many good, many terrible, increasing the toll on gun owners, who must know more than a human can reasonably be expected to know.

KEY: Bill number | Statute Affected | Chapter number | Description

HB2013 | §13-3112 o CH85 | 19-Year-Old CCW for Military Members
The qualifying age for carry permits has been lowered to 19 for anyone currently in or honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Services, Reserves or State National Guards.

HB2336 | §38-1102 | CH147 | Cops and Booze
Text about non-existent state-operated bars was removed from this law to help clarify that off-duty and retired cops can't drink in public while armed (just like us), unless on special assignment, but the use of “may” makes the actual affect of this law unclear: “C. A peace officer or retired peace officer may be prohibited from carrying a firearm as follows: 5. When consuming alcohol at a licensed liquor establishment [Deleted: operated by this state, a county, a city or town or any other political subdivision of this state], except if a peace officer's employing agency authorizes the consumption of alcohol in the performance of the peace officer's duties.”

HB2443 | §17-337 | CH93 | Soldier Hunting
Any member of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty stationed here can purchase a resident hunting license (the offensive 30-day waiting period has been repealed).

HB2483 | §§11-812, 12-558, 13-3107, 13-3108, 17-601 | CH62 | Shooting On Private Land
This bill protects shooting firearms, BB and similar guns, and archery on private land and elsewhere:

1. Regarding county land, nothing in any ordinance can prevent, restrict or otherwise regulate lawful discharge of a firearm, air gun or use of archery equipment on private land that is not open to the public on a commercial or membership basis (§11-812).

2. No one can be banned (“enjoined”) from lawful discharge of a firearm, air gun or use of archery equipment except by a) the attorney general to stop a public nuisance under §13-2917, or b) a private nuisance lawsuit or a negligence suit by a person in a permanent residence within 1/4 mile of the shot, with a strict burden of proof, the prevailing party collecting attorney's fees and costs, any claimed damages subject to clear and convincing evidence, and more (§12-558).

3. If hunting is legal in a city, the city can ban shooting within 1/4 mile of an occupied structure-unless it's OK with the owner or person in the structure. “Occupied structure” is now limited to a building where a reasonable person, at the time and place the shot was fired, would expect a person to be present (§13-3107).

4. Wherever hunting is legal, government subdivisions are under similar restrictions to those described above (§13-3108).

5. Political subdivisions of the state cannot use zoning to prohibit or regulate the discharge of firearms, or land maintenance or improvements directly related to shooting, on private land that isn't open to the public on a commercial or membership basis. They are also banned from exercising the same controls over land used for agricultural or other non-commercial purposes (§13-3108).

6. The definition of a shooting range is expanded to include, “Any area that is used for shooting on a private lot or parcel of land that is not open to the public on a commercial or membership basis.” This is designed to stop various authorities that have been harassing the public for using air guns and other implements in their backyards, without harming anyone, as a matter of pure anti-rights bias (§17-601). Use of BB guns and similar training tools and toys in Arizona has always been understood to be protected under §13-3107, simply with adult supervision. This also protects ranges people can simply set up on sufficient tracts of private land.

It got complicated preventing squirm out and collateral attacks on firearms and related private-land use. §13-3121 already covered this, but it needed reinforcement.

HB2535 | §13-3121 | CH173 | NFA Certification
The transfer of certain NFA weapons, such as full autos and suppressors*, requires certification by a local chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), who is now required to respond to requests within 60 days and to provide certification if the transfer is legal. If unable to do so, the CLEO must inform the applicant in writing, with a reason. If the CLEO has less than 15 officers, the applicant may be referred to a county sheriff, who must comply with the request as above. A county attorney or tribal agency also may but is not required to provide certification. CLEOs cannot refuse to act because they don't like NFA weapons (that's actually in there, because some did refuse, which is why this law was enacted). *These are often referred to as Class III weapons, but they are actually Title II weapons. Class III is the license type dealers need to handle them commercially.

SB1118 | §17-304 | CH182 | Hunting Trespass
A criminally actionable request to leave land during a hunting trespass now includes being asked by a law-enforcement officer on behalf of the land owner, not just by the landowner or the owner's agent.

SB1266 | §13-3102 | CH1889 | Arming Elites
Elected or appointed judicial officers, as defined, can carry firearms in court facilities where they work if: 1- They've demonstrated competence with a firearm as described in the CCW law §13-3112N, and 2- They comply with any rule or policy of the presiding judge of the Superior Court while in the facility. This literally gives gun-law-making authority to presiding judges without legislative oversight, to people under that command, a dangerous new power completely without precedent. Everything below subsection D in that section gets renumbered.

NOTE: Carry In Post Offices Is Apparently Banned o Although 18 USC §930 seemed to provide for firearm possession and carry in Post Offices, an analysis provided by scholar Joe Olson at Hamline U. suggests government has ruled out this liberty with the generally unnoticed passage of 39 USC §410 in 2003, which eliminates large swaths of law that generally controls the Post Office, including 18 USC §930(d)(3),“the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” See the apparently valid description of how this got done at under the Updates button.

readers love sonoran news