Laws On Right To Bear Arms, Justified Use Of Force To Be Triggered July 20

Senate Bill 1244 amends the Parents’ Bill of Rights to clarify that parental permission is not required for an investigating officer to make a video or voice recording of a minor, as long as the recording is being made in the course of an official investigation.

“It’s better to have an interview on tape the first time, rather than having to go back to interview a minor six or eight times to clarify points,” said Clark. “Even if a child is accused of doing something horrendous, it can be hard on them to be interviewed again and again.”

Aside from making the investigation process easier for a minor to endure, Clark points out the new law also benefits the progress of an investigation because parents’ natural inclination is to protect their child and often, faced with the revelation that their child confessed their part in a crime, parents are disbelieving and accuse officers of coercing a confession. Clark said taped interviews with minors can prevent this element from bogging down an investigation.

Under House Bill 2645, individuals who have been prohibited from possessing firearms because of a previous crime can petition the court to restore their right to bear arms.

On this law, Clark has mixed feelings.

“There are some crimes, that as part of your punishment, you lose certain rights forever. You commit murder, you’re a rapist…some of these people should never be allowed to carry guns again,” said Clark.

“But an 18-year-old who makes one dumb mistake that isn’t of a horrendous nature? Should you really have to pay the rest of your life?” asked Clark. “Once you’ve done what society’s demanded in paying for a crime, in many instances, there’s no reason you should have to forego the right to carry a gun or hunt for the rest of your life.”

Part of HB 2645 states that, with exceptions, a retired peace officer may not be prohibited from carrying a firearm. Clark commented that he hadn’t reviewed what this portion of the law is referring to, but on its face, felt no one should get special consideration just because he or she is a retired police officer.

SB 1200 makes a number of changes to statutes related to driving under the influence (DUI), the use of continuous alcohol monitoring (CAM) programs and ignition interlock devices (IID). The new law sets forth that DUI statutes will now apply to drugs listed in the criminal code, as well as to alcohol. So, if tests taken during or in follow up to a traffic stop show the presence of illegal drugs, or controlled drugs for which the driver does not have a prescription, all of the standard DUI penalties can be applied.

With the new law, municipalities and counties are authorized to establish a continuous alcohol monitoring program for those convicted of DUI, and the program will be treated the same as confinement in jail. Prisoners placed in a CAM will have to bear all of the costs associated with screening, monitoring and enrollment in the program, and pay $30 per month. If the court finds the prisoner can’t pay the court fees, it has the discretion to assess a lower fine.

In a CAM program, convicted DUI offenders are to be under electronic monitoring at home whenever they’re not at work or at an assigned community service project.

The CAM program keeps jails and prisons from filling up with DUI offenders, and states and counties from incurring the high cost of housing prisoners, but it is up to the courts to follow guidelines to determine who will be placed in the program. Prisoners cannot be placed in the CAM program if they’re considered a risk to self or other members or the community, if there is a past history of violent behavior, or if in the sentencing judge’s opinion, some other factor renders the individual ineligible for the program.

SB 1200 also provides for people who have had their license revoked and have completed 45 days of the revocation period to receive a special ignition interlock restricted driver license.

The IID allows people to drive their own vehicle from their home to specific locations while their license is suspended. Allowed destinations include work; substance abuse testing, education or treatment facilities; probation officer appointments; doctor’s appointments; and the IID service facility.

To receive an IID, drivers must pay the costs of installing and maintaining the device, provide proof it has been installed in each vehicle the person operates, provide proof of compliance every 90 days and provide proof of inspection of the device at least once every 90 days.

Commenting on the ignition interlock portion of the new law, Clark said the program is a good way to keep the administrative costs of dealing with DUI offenders down, because the cost of housing prisoners in Arizona is so high.

“However, I think we’re tired as a society as a whole, of drunks maiming and killing our family members,” said Clark, noting that some people aren’t satisfied unless drunk drivers are behind bars.

“I’m all about forgiveness and letting someone get a second chance. This is a great program for second chances,” said Clark. “It lets people keep working so they don’t have to lose their home or their job because of one bad choice. I agree they should have to pay for the program, but I don’t agree with reducing the cost if they can’t afford it.

“If you want to participate in the program, find a way to pay for it. Get a second job. Shame on you if you can’t pay for your crime. You shouldn’t be driving drunk,” said Clark.

While he believes in second chances, Clark doesn’t think leeway should be given to anyone participating in the CAM or IID programs. If offenders are found to violate any portion of the programs, he believes they should not be allowed to reenter the program.

“As a society, we’ve shown forgiveness once; don’t ask us to extend it again,” he said.

Clark points out that people will find ways to get around monitoring programs, whether by borrowing someone else’s vehicle or tampering with the IID, and acknowledges such programs require intensive, constant monitoring.

SB 1469 redefines elements of justification for the use of force in certain situations, and also establishes legal presumptions regarding the justified use of force.

“Good citizens who want to protect themselves or see someone who needs help should not be afraid they’re going to get sued if they step up,” said Clark.

The new law relates to defending one’s home or vehicle from intruders or would be carjackers. It also allows people to use force to protect themselves, their families or a person they see being directly threatened by another individual. People are also allowed to use force if they reasonably believe someone is about to set fire to an occupied building, or believe burglary with intent to do unlawful or deadly harm, kidnapping, sexual conduct with a minor, rape, child molestation or armed robbery is about to be committed.

SB 1469 sets in place legal protection and awards legal costs to those who are sued as a result of using physical force against, or even killing, someone engaged in or threatening one of the described acts.

“People should be able to defend their neighbors, friends and bystanders from being attacked, and shouldn’t have to fear prosecution,” said Clark.

He noted that defining “reasonable” fear that a threat is imminent will be tricky in court cases, but still believes that it’s good to have a statute now that provides more protections to those who act to defend themselves or others.

Another law passed by the legislature was rushed through in an emergency measure following the Jan. 8 shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and seriously wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The legislature acted quickly to approve SB 1101 when it was learned that the Westboro Baptist Church, an independent Baptist church known for its extreme stance against homosexuality, and for picketing military and celebrity funerals, planned to protest the funerals and memorial services of those killed in the attack.

SB 1101 outlaws picketing or engaging in any other protest activities within 300 feet of a funeral or burial service. Protest activities are defined for this law as any action that is disruptive of a funeral or burial, and is considered a class one misdemeanor.

“I’m really glad they passed this law. The damage these groups do to people already in pain, it ought to be more than a class one misdemeanor,” said Clark emphatically, noting the trauma of losing a loved one shouldn’t be compounded by the antics of a group just trying to gain attention.

“The law says they can only be so many feet away. It should be miles,” Clark said with disgust.