Expansion of Arizona’s ‘castle doctrine’ law sparks fiery debate
PHOENIX – A Senate committee approved an expansion of Arizona’s “castle doctrine’’ defense to make it apply not just in someone’s home and yard but on any property they own or control after a fiery debate on Thursday.
The fight between Republicans backing what the sponsor of House Bill 2843 originally framed as a needed protection for farmers and ranchers. That drew a sharp response from Democrats who called it a virtual license to gun down migrants.
But in debate at the Judiciary Committee that lasted an hour, Rep. Justin Heap, R-mesa, the sponsor of the measure, said it had nothing to do with migrants and only makes a minor change to the existing law.
“It just makes it clear to judges in what circumstances you can raise a defense in court,’’ Heap told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
That, however, is not how Heap sold the measure when it went through the House.
He told colleagues that the law was needed specifically to give ranchers and farmers tools they need to stop large number of migrants from crossing their lands. Those remarks during testimony in an earlier House committee hearing were widely reported in various news media.
During that much more sedate House hearing last month, Heap said the change would simply give legal cover for property owners to threaten to use deadly force to evict a trespasser on vast swaths of the state’s open ranch and farm land. If they actually used deadly force, they’d have to show they were themselves threatened.
Heap tried to walk back those statements on Thursday, saying the change in law he was proposing had nothing to do with immigration. But the damage was done.
“My first question would be why were you surprised that the attention that this has brought is what it is,’’ Sen. Anna Hernandez, D-phoenix, asked Heap.
Heap said statements he was quoted as making at that hearing were inaccurately conveyed.
But numerous Democrats read directly from transcripts during Thursday’s hearing. And a review by Capitol Media Services of Heap’s testimony confirmed it.
Republicans, however, slammed the media for crafting an inaccurate narrative. Sen. John Kavanagh, R-fountain Hills, said it does not change existing law that only allows someone to shoot in defense of themselves or someone else.
“Yet all the opponents of this bill have blanketed the news media with ‘you can use deadly force in your house and now we’re taking it outside,’ ‘’ said Kavanagh. “The result will be some people may be killed because of misinformation gun control people against this bill have spread all over the place.’’
He said people who believe that could end up being charged with homicide because they thought the reports were accurate.
“Let’s stop the misinformation,’’ he added.
“This bill does nothing but expand the area of the existing law, which doesn’t allow deadly law purely for trespass,’’ Kavanagh said. “And decent people who were misled by that lie will end up being prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter because they thought … that they could shoot to killed in their house.’’
Others, however, said the effects of what Heap is proposing are significant.
Anne Thompson, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action, a group that pushes for strong gun laws, urged the panel not to broaden the state’s self-defense laws.
“Unfortunately, the ramifications of this bill can be dehumanizing and can provoke vigilantism and escalate conflicts to violence,’’ Thompson said.
Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, warned that enacting the measure would be misread by ordinary people – namely the farmers and ranchers Heap initially said he was trying to help.
“Often … it is applied so broadly by individuals and then held up by law enforcement as a means to shoot and kill trespassers who are marching across your farmland at the border,’’ Rodriguez said.
Arizona has several trespassing laws on the books, including one that already allows a property owner or manager to order someone to leave their land and to ask law enforcement officers to compel them to do so or be arrested.
The change in law that Heap is proposing is in the actual self-defense law. Currently, that law applies only to a residence or a residential yard.
The measure was passed by the committee on a 4-3 vote, with only Republicans in support.
“Every week I’m amazed by the egregious types of bills that we hear in this committee and other committees and as we vote for them in the (majority Republican) makeup of what exists now,’’ she said. “The fact that we’re trying to expand legislation that would encourage killing and shooting that would result in death is wild to me.’’
Republicans continued to push back, calling the narrative embraced by minority Democrats false.
“I am disturbed by the amount of misinformation and politicking taking place from the left side of the dais today,’’ said Sen. Justine Wadsack, R-tucson. “And if you read the bill, you would see that your arguments have nothing to do with the bill. You’ve clearly not read the bill.’’
That prompted one last eruption during the hearing, this one from Sen. Mitzi Epstein, D-tempe.
“I clearly read the bill, aloud, to the audience, so do not accuse me of not reading the bill,’’ Epstein said.
“Misinformed, misinformed,’’ Wadsack shot back.
Heap said during House meetings that he was pushing for the change because of concerns with ambiguities in the current law raised by prosecutors in Yuma and Yavapai counties. But the two county attorneys, Jon Smith in Yuma and Dennis Mcgrane, told Capitol Media Services they had not asked for the law to be changed.
Mcgrane said a recent case in his county did involve questions how the law it applied in specific circumstances. He said, though, someone outside his office raised it with a lawmaker.