Annie Peterson | Civil Patriot
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Arizona Constitutional Provision Article 2, Section 26: Bearing arms
Leo Biasiucci, Republican whip in the Arizona House of Representatives, recently introduced HB 2111, a bill described as being the “Second Amendment Firearm Freedom Act.” It passed the Arizona House of Representative on February 24th 31-29 along party lines.
Biasiucci hopes the bill will pass in the State Senate and eventually signed into law by the governor. If it does, then the state could potentially become a Second Amendment “sanctuary” state.
According to Biasiucci, “We’re Second Amendment friendly. We love our law-abiding citizens, gun owners. So I have a bill HB 2111 … it’s very simple. It says if the federal government changes anything at the federal level, Arizona is not gonna play. We’re not going to use money. We’re not gonna use resources to comply—if they ban AR-15 and they try to come in and start arresting people. Not gonna happen in our state. The courts won’t even mess with it, our law enforcement won’t mess around.”
He’s right when he says that Arizona won’t play. Since COVID-19 came on the scene, gun sales have increased substantially in Arizona. Less than two weeks ago, supporters of the Second Amendment gathered at the Arizona Capitol. Why? To express their support of the right to bear arms. The event boasted over 20 speakers, and there were booths/shops selling gun-related gear like shirts, hats, flags, and so on.
So, if Arizona won’t play I have to wonder if states like Texas will join them. Already, Missouri, Wyoming, South Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas, and Alaska have their own respective versions of a federal gun law nullification as part of their state laws.
This brings up an interesting notion—that of states nullifying federal law. California started all of this years ago when they opted to defy federal immigration officials. A 9th circuit judge ruled that California had “to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”
So, if California didn’t have to “play” with the federal government back then, could all of the states eventually pass similar laws, where they (in essence) say, “We’re done doing what you say.”
Interesting, isn’t it? Before long we could have 50 independent states, each unwilling to support the federal government on this law or that law.
This is what happens when the federal government becomes too intrusive, too overpowering. When a president makes sweeping orders that literally take away states’ rights, they have no choice but to fight back.
It will be interesting to see how this Arizona story ends. No doubt other states are watching closely, perched and ready to move in similar fashion.
All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.