Hobbs Vetoes Four Firearm Safety Bills
Governor Katie Hobbs just vetoed four strong pro-Second Amendment bills that would have made Arizona law cleaner, safer, and more practical for responsible gun owners:
• SB1012, concealed weapons; notice; repeal
• SB1053, concealed weapons permits; fees
• SB1068, disruption; educational institution; concealed weapon
• SB1069, prohibited weapons; muffling device; repeal
Each bill dealt with a real issue. None of them were extreme. None of them created a free-for-all. None of them stripped away basic public-safety protections.
Her veto letters leaned heavily on the same general theme: safety. But saying “safety” does not make a policy safe. Saying a bill “could increase risk” does not prove that it does. Saying law-abiding gun owners are the problem does not make it true.
These vetoes were not based on a serious reading of the bills. They were based on the same tired assumption that more restrictions on responsible gun owners somehow make everyone else safer.
Arizona knows better.
SB1012—Responsible Restaurant Carry Is Not the Same as Drinking While Armed
The Governor vetoed the bill because she said she would not take decision-making authority away from a restaurant business over firearm restrictions inside its own establishment. That may sound reasonable at first glance. After all, property rights matter. Business owners have legitimate interests. Nobody should pretend otherwise.
But that is not the whole story.
A person who has gone through the concealed-weapons permit process, is carrying concealed, and is not consuming alcohol should not be treated like a public-safety threat simply because he or she sits down for dinner at a restaurant that also serves alcohol.
Arizona law should be able to tell the difference between a sober, responsible permit holder and someone acting recklessly.
The practical effect of the veto is simple: the person most likely to obey the sign is the person least likely to be the problem. Criminals do not plan their conduct around restaurant signage. A violent actor is not going to stop at the door, read a posted notice, and decide to take the night off.
The people who comply are the law-abiding. That means these rules tend to disarm the responsible while doing very little to stop the dangerous.
SB1012 also protected businesses from being forced into an enforcement role. The bill made clear that licensees would not have a duty to investigate whether a person had a concealed-weapons permit. That is common sense. A restaurant manager should not have to become a firearms-permit investigator. A server should not have to guess whether a customer is legally carrying. Small businesses have enough to manage without being pushed into firearm enforcement duties.
The Governor could have asked for a narrower bill. She could have asked for clearer language separating restaurants from bars. She could have proposed a direct trespass-based remedy if a business personally asked someone to leave. She could have worked with the Legislature on language that balanced property interests with the rights of sober permit holders.
She did not.
SB1053—Permit Fees Should Not Punish Responsible Gun Owners
SB1053 would have reduced concealed-weapons permit fees for Arizona residents. The Governor vetoed it by claiming that reducing fees, without supplemental funding, would defund the state police unit that administers the concealed-weapons permit program. She also accused the Legislature of attacking law-enforcement funding.
That argument does not hold up.
Arizona is a constitutional carry state. A law-abiding adult does not need a permit to carry in many circumstances. But permits still matter. They matter for reciprocity. They matter for travel. They matter for training. They matter for responsible gun owners who want clear documentation that they have completed the required process.
Second, a concealed-weapons permit is tied to the exercise of a constitutional right. It should not be treated like a luxury license. The Second Amendment is not a state-issued privilege. It is a right. When the state attaches costs to a process connected to that right, those costs should be limited, justified, and transparent.
Third, if the Governor’s concern was funding for the permit unit, that was fixable. The answer was not a veto. The answer was a funding amendment, a reporting requirement, a delayed effective date, or a direct appropriation.
SB1068—Campus Safety Should Include the Right of Self-Defense
SB1068 dealt with concealed carry by valid permit holders on university, college, and community college property. The Governor vetoed it…again. Her letter noted that she had vetoed the same bill in 2025 and 2023. She said student safety is a top concern and that she would continue to veto legislation that threatens student safety or could increase risk on campus.
The veto letter never explains why a trained, permitted adult is presumed to be a danger simply because that adult steps onto a college campus.
College campuses are not sealed safety zones. They are large, open environments. They include parking garages, sidewalks, bus stops, night classes, laboratories, libraries, dorm-adjacent areas, commuter lots, and long walks between buildings. Students, faculty, and staff often move through those areas early in the morning, late at night, and sometimes alone. The state cannot just say “campus safety” and pretend that ends the conversation.
Safety for whom? The student walking to a car after a night class? The veteran using the GI Bill and commuting between work, school, and home? The staff member crossing a dark parking lot? The woman who has already been threatened and is trying to protect herself within the law? Those people are part of campus safety too.
The Governor’s argument also assumes that disarming lawful adults makes a campus safer. That assumption deserves to be challenged. A rule against lawful carry stops the person who follows rules. It does not stop the person who came to campus to commit a crime. It does not stop someone who ignores the law. It does not stop a violent actor from bringing a weapon into a prohibited area.
Adult students and staff do not lose their right to self-defense when they enter higher education.
SB1069—Suppressors Are Hearing Protection
SB1069 would have removed firearm muffling devices, commonly known as suppressors, from Arizona’s prohibited-weapons list. This bill should have been easy.
Federal law would still regulate suppressors. The bill did not erase the National Firearms Act. It did not remove federal background checks. It did not remove federal registration. It did not create an unregulated market. It simply removed a state-level barrier that treats a federally regulated safety device as a prohibited weapon under Arizona law.
The Governor vetoed SB1069 by saying “gun silencers” make it harder for law enforcement officers to do their jobs and keep Arizonans safe.
That statement relies on the Hollywood version of suppressors. In real life, suppressors do not make firearms silent. They reduce dangerous sound levels. For shooters, hunters, firearms instructors, range employees, law-enforcement officers, and veterans, repeated exposure to gunfire can cause permanent hearing damage.
SB1069 was not a crime bill. It was not an anti-police bill. It was not a loophole bill. It was a hearing-protection bill and a legal-consistency bill.
The Pattern is Clear
These four vetoes all have the same problem: they treat lawful gun owners as the risk.
SB1012 treated sober, permitted restaurant carry as a reasonable accommodation for responsible adults. The Governor framed it as taking authority away from restaurants.
SB1053 tried to lower the cost of concealed-weapons permits. The Governor framed it as an attack on law-enforcement funding.
SB1068 recognized that adult permit holders on college campuses may have legitimate self-defense needs. The Governor framed it as a campus danger.
SB1069 treated suppressors as federally regulated hearing-protection tools. The Governor framed them as a threat to police.
In every case, the Governor chose the most restrictive reading of the bill and gave little credit to the citizens who follow the law.
If the state wants to burden responsible gun owners, the state should be expected to explain why. With evidence.
The Constitutional Problem
The Second Amendment is not a second-tier right. The United States Supreme Court made that clear in District of Columbia v. Heller and again in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Heller recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. Bruen rejected the idea that courts can treat the right as a balancing exercise whenever the government invokes public safety.
That does not mean every firearm bill must pass. It does not mean every regulation is unconstitutional. It means the government has to take the right seriously.
What Supporters Should Do Next
These bills should come back, but with stronger records, tighter findings, and testimony that makes the veto arguments harder to repeat.
For SB1012, supporters should center the debate on sober, permitted carry. Make the bill about responsible adults having dinner with their families, not intoxicated behavior. Keep the no-consumption language front and center. Bring in business owners who do not want to be turned into firearm-enforcement agents.
For SB1053, supporters should demand a clear accounting of the permit program. What does it cost to run? What revenue does it bring in? What amount is needed to keep it operating? If funding is the objection, then make the state prove the number.
For SB1068, supporters should build the campus-safety record around real people. Night students. Veterans. Staff. Commuters. Parents. People who move between work, school, and home. People who cannot simply leave their right of self-defense behind because their daily schedule crosses a campus boundary.
For SB1069, supporters should lead with hearing health. Bring in firearms instructors, audiologists, range operators, hunters, veterans, competitive shooters, and occupational-safety experts. Make opponents explain why Arizona should continue treating a federally regulated hearing-protection device as a prohibited weapon under state law.
The Bottom Line
Governor Hobbs vetoed four bills that would have helped responsible Arizonans. The Governor’s veto letters did not give them fair treatment. They relied on broad claims, thin reasoning, and the same old assumption that restricting the law-abiding improves safety.
Arizona should reject that assumption. Responsible gun owners are not the threat. Criminals are. How does punishing responsible gun owners make Arizona safer?
—Michael Infanzon, EPIC Policy Group
AzCDL Chief Lobbyist