You are here: Home / News / Stop Gov. Ducey's STOP

Stop Gov. Ducey's STOP

Gov. Ducey's plan to 'end school violence' includes a dangerous proposal often referred to as 'Red Flag' or 'Gun Violence' Restraining Orders. We must #StopSTOP

Your action is needed as soon as possible. Gov. Ducey has introduced his plan abd the legislature is expected to introduce the legislation implementing his plan this week., which includes Red Flag Restraining Orders. Please read what we sent to the Governor. You can use what you like from it to email your two Representatives as well as your Senator..


You should contact your House members and Senator. To find their contact information, see the links below:

Senate members:

House members:


Here is our Note which provides details of RFRO's


Governor Doug Ducey,


The part of Gov Ducey's plan that is most more troubling is Red Flag Restraining Orders.

Red Flag Restraining order laws give short atonement to due process and the individual right to bear and keep arms (See Az. Const., Art. II, Sec. 26).

  1. How can a law limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly a defined class of people? It is very difficult for even the most eloquent law-writer to do so. It would also make it ripe for abuse by any defined person and judge.
  2. RFRO’s should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing and admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others. In States where these restraining orders have been implemented, this standard has either not been followed or it has been amended to include a weaker standard. Herein lays the danger. We call it law-creep (think military mission-creep). That is what has happened in California. Surely you do not want history to remember you as the Arizona governor who turned our State in to California-lite!
  3. Another issue with RFRO’s would be with the judges themselves. Sure, when can claim that judges are honorable and will let the constitution and laws guide them, but I have personal experience that says otherwise.
  4. Any RFRO should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against them; however, States like California only allow them to contest the RO if the length of time in effect is for one-year.
  5. Another issue is who bears the burden of the legal costs, especially if the RFRO is a result of a law enforcement request?  The burden for legal cost should not be borne by the respondent.
  6. Moreover, how will the legislature deal with and ex parte RFRO? How long must the respondent wait for a hearing?
  7. How long will the RFRO remain in full force and effect? Will it be 3-days; the normal length of time for is 3-days for a professional to evaluate their mental health. Or, will you and the legislature make the RFRO longer, such as 1-year, like other States have done?
  8. Lastly, According to the BATF Form 4473, an involuntary commitment would render the respondent as a PROHIBITED POSSESSOR (See question 11f and subsequent instructions). The respondent might have to go through an expensive process to have their right to bear and keep arms restored.

We can only look to a few States that have implemented them, most recently, Florida.

FL has already issued 5 RO's under their Red Flag law. One is highly questionable, but the Judge issued the RO anyway.

And therein lies the danger. A Judge is highly unlikely to deny the request. There is fallout of his denial for one, then there is blowback should a denied RO go out and do something.

Also in FL, deficiencies in their language have emerged.

Here are some raised in a Courier-Tribune article on March 31st:

* What can police do about weapons in the home that are not owned by the subject of the order?
* How can the judicial system balance the privacy of minors with the open nature of the orders?
* Who’s responsible for monitoring the subject?
* What happens if the subject wants to turn his weapons over to a responsible third party instead of to police?

These are some important questions to a complicated matter. Let’s look at what other communities are doing:

1. A change in policing techniques. Examples are Sacramento’s Advance Peace, which is controversial and fairly new and ‘Hot Spot Policing,’ which has proven effective;

2. Increase guidance counselors and School Resource Officers;

3. ‘Harden’ those schools that have not been hardened;

4. Implement ‘Focused Deterrence Strategies;’

5. Neighborhoods and community are critical to fighting crime. Neighborhoods such as Englewood, a Chicago suburb, have found some success. In the 1990’s, Tucson implemented a program they called Volunteers in Prevention. Those neighborhoods that participated experienced a drop in both violent and property; and

6. Although expensive, neighborhood mental health clinics, which are voluntarily funded by the community by raising their own property taxes, is what some of the more violent neighborhoods have elected to do in Chicago. This would be one way to help with funding.

These are just some examples, but require ‘thinking outside the box’ rather than rehashing the same tired, old attacks on law abiding gun owners. Not only are gun owners tired of these the same old, tired, non-working solutions, so are the people.

Let’s stop playing with people’s lives and look at what might work in Arizona and implement them rather than going to the automatic default, controlling the 99.98% of gun owners who never have, and never will commit a single homicide.