Though it would almost certainly be vetoed if it reaches the Democratic Governor’s desk, Arizona Republicans in the state legislature have advanced HB 2834, a bill that would allow ranchers along the border to use lethal force against trespassers. The bill is broader than that, allowing lawful owners of property to use deadly force in any instance of criminal trespass, not just along the border, but the bill seems primarily meant as a border defense measure.
If passed, the bill would expand Arizona’s self-defense law to make defense of a premises from criminal trespass a justification for the use of deadly force. The bill considers a premises to be either “real property,” meaning land, whether developed or not, and any structure on that land, whether occupied by people or not, so long as adapted for lodging or residence.
The bill, which is titled, “Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises,” provides that “A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in 7threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon ON the premises.”
Continuing, the bill provides that “A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.” It then defines what a “premises” is, saying, “In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, “premises” means any real property and OR any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both EITHER human residence and OR lodging whether occupied or not.”
State Rep. Justin Heap, who introduced the legislation, described it as being meant to clarify Arizona’s self-defense law to allow farmers to defend their entire property, not just the house and its environs, from intruders. He argued that right now the law is unclear, which creates tricky legal situations for those who feel threatened by intruders on their land.
He said, “Language like ‘and’ ‘or’ ‘either’…that one word can completely change the meaning of how this law is then applied.” Heap continued, “If a farmer owns 10,000 acres of farmland, his home may be a half a mile away from where he is, and if he sees someone on his land, can he approach them and (remove) them from his property? This is an amendment to fix that.”
Similarly, Rep. Alex Kolodin described the bill, which passed through committee 5-3-1 with every Democrat voting against it, as a pro-Second Amendment bill that would provide much needed clarity on Arizona’s self-defense law. He said, “This is a great Second Amendment bill, that is also protecting the rights of the accused to make sure we are taking ambiguity out of our law.”
On the other side, an Arizona Democrat state representative, Rep. Ortiz, framed the bill as allowing “extrajudicial killings.” He said, “HB2843 expands the (Castle Doctrine) law in a way that I think is very dangerous, as guns continue to wreak havoc upon our communities. I do not think there is any sense in giving a green light to more extrajudicial killings.”
The bill comes as mass migration across the border continues, with much of the border in Arizona, a blue state, being described as open and undefended. Video out of Nogales, Arizona, for example, showed the
"*" indicates required fields