And that is exactly the point, Kolodin said.
“What this bill says is, if the feds want to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, they can darn well pay for doing that themselves, and we’re not going to have Arizona law enforcement do it,” the Scottsdale Republican told the Arizona Mirror.
Kolodin’s House Concurrent Resolution 2037 strikes out the entire section of state law that prohibits deadly weapons. If it’s taken up by the legislature — it’s been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee but not yet considered — and wins support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then Arizona voters would have to approve the change in 2026.
He said that the ban on any kind of weapon, no matter how dangerous it might be, is a violation of the Second Amendment, and something Arizona shouldn’t be complicit in. But since he can’t do anything about federal laws that overlap with the state laws, Kolodin said the job of enforcing banned weapons laws should be solely that of the federal government.
Kolodin campaigned on upholding the Second Amendment and is a member of the Arizona Citizens’ Defense League — a nonprofit advocacy group that pushes for gun laws to emphasize criminal misuse over possession.
According to his campaign website, Kolodin vowed to oppose red flag laws and advance legislation that prevents state resources from being used for federal gun control efforts.
What would enforcement after HCR 2037 look like?
While certain weapons may still be illegal or severely restricted under federal law, Kolodin’s proposal would remove the layer of enforcement that state prosecutors have.
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland and author of multiple books on gun policy, said he does not anticipate that Donald Trump’s administration will prioritize funding a robust Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
“Given the limited enforcement capabilities of the federal agency charged with carrying them out… it would seem to be a de facto open door for people who want to have these kinds of weapons,” Spitzer said.
That means pressure to enforce bans on fully automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other illegal weapons will likely fall on local police departments and prosecutors’ offices, Spitzer said. Removing the state laws used to do that would leave enforcement solely up to the federal government.
I cannot see people, if they really understood this content, thinking this is a good idea.
– Dr. Lisa Kopp, Moms Demand Action
Dave Workman, a Washington-based senior editor of TheGunMag.com, echoed that a sweeping removal of a state’s prohibited weapons ban could create confusion if people think those weapons are now legal.
“You’d have a potential of Arizona citizens, who are just like anybody else who owns a firearm, 99.99 times out of 100, they’re squeaky clean, law-abiding citizens,” Workman said. “They just happen to like to shoot weird guns, and they could really run afoul of federal statutes.”
Calls to the Arizona Law Enforcement Association and Phoenix Law Enforcement Association were not returned, but Kolodin said he had not heard any opposition from police groups.
“When law enforcement is against something, they’re not shy about telling us, and I haven’t heard from any of them,” he said.
Grassroots groups ready to oppose resolution
Erin Earp is the senior policy attorney for Giffords, a gun reform organization led by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Tucson Democrat who survived an assassination attempt in 2011.
A gunman shot Giffords in the head during a massacre as the congresswoman was meeting with constituents. The shooting killed six and wounded 12 others. She founded the advocacy group with her husband, U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, in 2013.
Earp said she has not seen legislation like this in other states, and she called it “dangerous.”
“What we’ve seen from the Trump administration is that they do not appear interested in enforcing any of these types of laws (at the federal level),” Earp said.
Dr. Lisa Kopp decided to volunteer with Arizona’s chapter of Moms Demand Action, a group that advocates for public safety measures to prevent gun violence, after the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting in 2022.
“Mass shootings are, of course, devastating and get a lot of press,” Kopp said. “But it’s the everyday gun violence that occurs in the United States — that affects, most often, people of color — that also needs attention.”
Overall gun deaths have steadily increased in Arizona within the last decade, according to the Arizona Public Health Association’s 2023 report on gun violence.
In Arizona, Black people were seven times as likely to die by gun homicide than their white counterparts in 2022, according to a Johns Hopkins University study.
The report showed that Arizona also had the highest gun homicide rate for Hispanic/Latino people in the country in 2022.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s report investigating Phoenix Police Department, city officials speculated that the reason behind police shootings was, in part, due to Arizona’s lax gun laws.
Kopp said that volunteers with Moms Demand Action plan to speak against the resolution if it is scheduled for a hearing.
“Any reasonable person who reads this list … I think there would be concern, no matter what your feeling on (the Second Amendment) is,” Kopp said. “I cannot see people, if they really understood this content, thinking this is a good idea.”
Moms Demand Action will join other grassroots groups, including Giffords and Arizonans for Gun Safety, to meet with lawmakers on gun-related proposals later this month, Kopp said.
What kinds of weapons are restricted?
The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions in all states on the sale, transfer and possession of weapons including:
Fully automatic firearms (machine guns) Short-barreled rifles (rifles with a barrel under 16 inches)Short-barreled shotguns (shotguns with a barrel under 18 inches)Suppressors (silencers or mufflers)Destructive devices (explosives, grenades)
Each weapon comes with its own level of restrictions. But in order to legally own any weapon covered by the National Firearms Act, a person must register it with the ATF, pay a tax stamp and pass a background check.
Arizona law prohibits all of the aforementioned weapons, “unless the owner is specifically licensed or authorized.”
According to Spitzer, the state restricted suppressors five years before the National Firearms Act became law in 1934, and was one of the first states to do so.
States like Washington prohibit suppressors unless they are “legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law.” Kolodin’s “Shall Not Be Infringed Act” did not make that stipulation in its initial draft. Neither did a Senate bill that focuses solely on repealing the state ban on suppressors. But an existing statute says the prohibited weapons list does not apply to those who have a license.
Arizona law also says the Game and Fish Commission “shall not adopt or enforce any rule that prohibits the lawful possession or use of a firearm silencer or muffler, including for the taking of wildlife or while hunting.”
“They’re very popular with people for hunting, for any number of reasons, none of which involve committing a crime,” said Workman.
What this bill says is, if the feds want to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, they can darn well pay for doing that themselves, and we're not going to have Arizona law enforcement do it.
– Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale
In October, police arrested a man suspected of shooting at a Democratic Party office in Tempe several times as well as leaving a powder substance on political signs.
While the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is pursuing charges, none were tied to the 120 guns, 250,000 rounds of ammunition, body armor and a grenade launcher found in the suspect’s possession — although ATF did take hold of them. The attorney representing Jeffrey Michael Kelly, 60, told the judge that the weapons were all legally obtained.
Kelly faces charges including one count of terrorism; four counts of unlawful use of an infectious biological substance or radiological agent; three counts of discharging a firearm at a structure; three counts of unlawfully discharging a firearm; and one count of criminal damage.
Senate bill focuses on legalizing suppressors
On Jan. 29, the state Senate Judiciary Committee approved Senate Bill 1014, which was introduced by Flagstaff Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers and would decriminalize firearm sound suppressors. During the committee vote, Sen. Mark Finchem, a Republican from Prescott, told his colleagues that he owned a suppressor before voting in favor of the bill.
Those in favor of legalizing suppressors say they prevent hearing loss and frightening off game. Workman added they also help maintain goodwill with neighbors who don’t have to hear hunters’ gunshots while living near public lands.
Those in favor of restricting suppressors counter that the sound of a gunshot works to warn others of a threat, or to inform hikers of a nearby hunter.
Anne Thompson, a volunteer with Arizona’s chapter of Moms Demand Action, spoke in opposition of Rogers’ bill. Being able to hear the sound of gunshots could make the difference between life and death, she said.
“Contrary to what has been argued, silencers are not necessary to protect hearing. In fact, widely available ear protection products work better to protect hearing,” Thompson said.
Small-caliber rifles, air rifles, shotguns, and pistols can generate noise up to 140 decibels (dB). Higher-caliber rifles can produce sounds over 175 dB. According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, about 140 dB can permanently damage hearing, even from a single occurrence.
Being front row at a rock concert measures at about 110 dB.
On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 to 35 dB, roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs, according to the American Suppressor Association.
A 2016 study published by American College of Emergency Physicians found that suppressors reduced exposures at the ear between 17 and 24 dB.
“Hollywood has mythologized the silencer,” said Charles Heller, co-founder and communications director for the Arizona Citizens Defense League.
The group supported Rogers’ bill and plans to support Kolodin’s legislation.
Arizona also prohibits short-barrel rifles, which have a barrel length of less than 16 inches, and short-barrel shotguns, which have barrels less than 18 inches. Both weapons are banned because they are easily concealed but have more destructive power than handguns, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
“(Sawed off shotguns) have been used in crime. Let’s be really upfront about it. But whether a gun has a 14-inch barrel, or a 12-inch barrel, or whatever, the underlying thing is, you’re still committing a crime,” Workman said.
If someone commits a crime using a Mossberg 12 gauge, pump-action shotgun with an 18-inch barrel on it, they’re still committing a crime, he said.
“That’s really where the focus ought to be — not on how long a gun’s barrel should be,” Workman said.
But even Workman said Kolodin’s proposal to scrap the Arizona ban on improvised explosive devices, such as pipe bombs, as well as certain incendiary devices and chemical compounds, goes too far.
“Those are not, in my estimation, the kind of arms that would be protected by the Second Amendment,” Workman said. “Bombs and grenades and stuff like… That’s a little bit overkill.”
But Kolodin, an attorney who primarily works on elections cases, said he believes explosive are covered by the Second Amendment, which states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“‘Shall not be infringed,’” Kolodin emphasized. “There’s no asterisk there.”
