That is the right starting point for the first post-election veterans briefing. It should connect each district’s veteran population to service gaps, current law, unfinished proposals, agency duties, budget questions, and decisions lawmakers can make.

As of November 4, election results remain unofficial until the canvass. Early reports indicated possible changes in legislative control, but the briefing should use certified results before identifying the final makeup of the Legislature.2

What changed

The 2026 session left the next Legislature with enacted laws, unfinished proposals, and existing appropriations that require follow-through.

One new law creates a veterans’ specialty-court grant program and directs the Department of Veterans’ Services (ADVS) and Department of Corrections to coordinate around identifying incarcerated veterans and contacting those expected to be released within 90 days. Another law addresses identifying veteran status during arrest processing.3 The next step is to measure whether agencies identify veterans, make referrals, and connect them to services.

The state budget also carried forward funding for homeless-veteran services and a homeless-veterans strategic plan through fiscal year 2027.4 That preserves funding, but it does not show how many veterans received help or whether they obtained stable housing.

The first briefing should clearly separate:

• Current law: enacted requirements and responsibilities.

• Proposals: measures from 2026 that did not become law, or new ideas for 2027.

• Litigation: pending cases and resolved matters.

• Agency practice: what staff and providers do now.

• Recommendations: proposed decisions for lawmakers.

A bill introduced last session is not current law. A statutory duty does not prove that the service is being delivered. A funding line does not show an outcome.

Why it matters in Arizona

The VA estimates Arizona’s veteran population at 463,470 for fiscal year 2026.5 That statewide figure is a starting point, not a district needs assessment. Each legislator should receive a one-page profile showing the estimated number of veterans in the district, where services are located, relevant housing and employment indicators, and travel barriers for rural and tribal communities.

The profile should also explain its data sources and limits. Population estimates do not, by themselves, prove unmet need. Low service use may reflect limited access, long travel distances, wait times, eligibility rules, or lack of awareness.

The briefing should ask agencies and local providers for both need and access measures: wait times, distance to service, referrals made, veterans reached, applications completed, and services received. If a measure is not collected, say so and identify who could report it.

For housing programs, lawmakers should ask how many veterans received emergency shelter, transitional housing, or permanent housing; how many returned to homelessness; which communities lack providers; and whether state funding draws down federal or local support. The strongest argument against expanding state spending is that federal programs and existing providers may already address the need, while new grants can create recurring costs and duplicate services. The answer should be evidence: map existing programs, identify who cannot access them, and tie new spending to measurable outcomes.

For behavioral health, use current official data and distinguish national from Arizona-specific findings. The VA’s 2026 report found that 62 percent of veterans who died by suicide in 2024 were not receiving VA health care in the year of death or the year before.6 That national figure does not establish Arizona’s rate. State law requires the Department of Health Services to report Arizona veteran suicide data, including trends and regional and demographic information.7 The briefing should identify the latest state report and any missing measures.

Pending proposals and agency responsibility

The next Legislature should carry forward policy questions, not assume old bill numbers remain active.

For example, HB 2240 proposed tuition assistance for certain children or dependents of veterans with disabilities and included a proposed $15 million appropriation. It did not become law. Before reintroducing it, lawmakers should request estimates of eligible students, expected participation, interaction with federal education benefits, and costs to the state and public colleges.8

Other 2026 proposals addressed rural access, mobile services, housing, and paid claims assistance. Each should be checked against the official session record before being described as pending or enacted. For claims assistance, the briefing should distinguish federal accreditation rules, state consumer-protection law, ADVS services, and any new proposal. The Attorney General’s VetLink Solutions case was resolved by consent judgment in 2026; it should not be described as pending litigation.9

The memo should name the lead agency for each service and the partners responsible for referrals, data, and follow-up. ADVS has statutory duties to assist veterans and families with claims and benefits and to cooperate with public and private agencies.[10 Corrections and the courts have specific roles under the new laws. Higher education agencies administer education programs. Federal VA rules govern federal benefits and representation.

For every proposed policy, lawmakers should ask: Who administers it? Who is eligible? What service does it add? What does it cost? What outcome will be reported, and when?

What happens next

The first briefing should request three decisions:

1. Adopt district veteran profiles with clearly labeled data sources, service locations, and access gaps.

2. Request an implementation report from ADVS, Corrections, and the Administrative Office of the Courts on veteran identification, release referrals, specialty-court grants, and data-sharing procedures.

3. Require fiscal and outcome analysis before advancing new spending, including eligibility rules, agency workload, federal matching funds, expected participation, and a review date.

The briefing should help lawmakers decide which problems require legislation, which require agency action, and which need better data first.

The central question for each district is: What service should a veteran be able to reach, how will the state know it was delivered, and which agency will answer when the referral fails?

Last week, the House and Senate held four brief pro forma sessions, lasting about five minutes combined. No votes were taken. Still, the House saw 44 new bills filed. Twelve had a cosponsor from the other party, and 14 bills cleared committees and are eligible for a vote when the House returns.

Bills to Watch

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced the Election Worker and Polling Place Protection Act, H.R. 10926. It would create federal penalties for using force or threats against voters, poll watchers, or election workers, and for damaging polling places or vote-counting equipment.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) introduced the Data Center Oversight Act, H.R. 10950. It would require developers of data centers using at least 20 megawatts to report ownership, projected power and water use, and expected effects on local electric bills. The Department of Energy could fine inaccurate or missing filings.

Two other bipartisan proposals address homeownership and wildfire-related financial contracts. H.R. 10944, introduced by Reps. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Cal.), would allow people to use retirement savings for a home down payment or closing costs without paying income tax on the withdrawal. H.R. 10951, introduced by Reps. George Whitesides (D-Cal.) and Vince Fong (R-Cal.), would bar federally regulated trading markets from offering contracts tied to wildfires. Full bill text was not yet available for either proposal.

These bills may or may not advance. New bills are referred to committees, and many never receive a vote. Their introduction still shows which issues Members want to bring forward.

The Senate’s First Vote Back

The Senate’s first scheduled vote after returning on November 9 is set for 5:30 p.m. on H.R. 2347, the Survivor Justice Tax Prevention Act. The House passed the bill by voice vote in April. It would make lawsuit and settlement proceeds received by sexual-assault survivors tax-free, even when the survivor has no medical records or visible injuries.

Senate leaders also plan to use H.R. 2347 as a vehicle for a bipartisan permitting proposal released September 30 by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). The proposal would set deadlines for lawsuits challenging energy and infrastructure projects, expand federal authority to approve interstate power lines, and require data centers to pay for the power lines they need.

The Senate may replace the bill’s text as it considers the permitting deal. It remains unclear whether the survivor tax provision would stay in the final legislation. The November 9 vote is only the first hurdle: the Senate needs 60 votes to begin debate.

In the House, 14 committee-approved bills are lined up for potential votes after Members return. Many concern land, water, and tribal issues, including water-rights measures for the Navajo Nation and Taos Pueblo and buffalo restoration on tribal land.

The immediate schedule is quiet. The legislative agenda taking shape behind it is not. Federal funding expires December 11, and bills that do not pass both chambers by January 3 must start over in the next Congress.

Don’t forget to vote tomorrow!!

ABATE of Arizona is preparing for that work. Our agenda includes helping riders navigate the new motorcycle registration and endorsement requirement, protecting clear lane-use rules, improving access to rider training, making sure transportation planning accounts for motorcycles, addressing autonomous-vehicle safety, and protecting owners’ ability to repair their bikes.

These are not abstract policy questions. ADOT reported 194 motorcyclist deaths in Arizona in 2025. Each fatality represents a rider, a passenger, a family, and a community affected by a crash. Safety policy should respond to that reality with sound data, practical proposals, and a voice for the people who ride.

ABATE cannot do that work alone. Legislative advocacy depends on riders who attend meetings, share firsthand experience, contact elected officials, support motorcycle-rights organizations, and show up at the Capitol. If you want lawmakers to understand how a proposed law affects riders, your voice needs to be part of the conversation.

Here is what ABATE is working on for 2027, and how you can help.

1. Helping riders prepare for the new endorsement and registration requirement

Beginning January 1, 2027, at least one registered owner of a motorcycle must hold an Arizona motorcycle license or endorsement for ADOT to renew the registration. The requirement comes from House Bill 2114, enacted in 2026. The law also allows a one-time 30-day temporary registration for a person who provides proof of enrollment in an approved motorcycle training program. It includes an exemption for motorcycles owned by a business.

ABATE is working to make sure riders understand what the new law requires and have a fair opportunity to comply. A registration rule can affect people in different ways. Some motorcycles are registered to a rider who uses the bike regularly. Others may be jointly owned, held in a trust, stored, undergoing repair, or used by a family member who is not the registered owner. Riders may also need time to find an approved course and obtain an endorsement.

That is why we need members to help identify problems as they arise. If ADOT’s renewal process does not work as expected, if the temporary-registration option is unclear, or if riders cannot find an approved course in time, tell ABATE. Keep copies of notices, applications, and other relevant records. Include the date, location, and outcome. Specific examples help us distinguish a one-time misunderstanding from a problem that needs agency guidance or a legislative fix.

HB 2114 also changed Arizona’s Motorcycle Safety Fund. It directs the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety to use up to 75 percent of fund monies for motorcycle education, awareness, training, and related programs, and up to 25 percent for scholarships for riders from rural or low-income areas.

ABATE will be watching whether riders can actually use those opportunities. A scholarship does little good if classes are too far away, full, or offered at times riders cannot attend. We want the state to explain how the fund is used, where training is available, and whether scholarship programs are reaching the communities they are intended to serve.

How riders can help: Check your motorcycle endorsement and registration status before your next renewal. Share accurate information with other riders. Let ABATE know when you encounter a course-access or registration problem. Your experience can help us ask ADOT and lawmakers the right questions. We are working with Team Arizona to provide a discount for ABATE members. Is your membership up to date?

2. Protecting lane-filtering rights and promoting fair enforcement

Arizona law permits a limited form of lane filtering. A two-wheeled motorcycle may move between lanes when traffic is stopped if the street has at least two adjacent lanes traveling in the same direction, the speed limit is 45 miles per hour or less, the motorcycle travels no faster than 15 miles per hour, and the movement can be made safely.

In 2026, House Bill 2941 made violations of certain motorcycle lane-use rules reckless driving. The law applies to conduct prohibited by A.R.S. § 28-903(B) and (C), subject to the statutory exceptions. It took effect September 12, 2026.

Riders should know the difference between permitted filtering and conduct the law prohibits. Drivers, law-enforcement officers, prosecutors, and courts should understand the same distinction. Confusion can lead to unnecessary citations, conflict on the road, and serious consequences for riders.

ABATE is working to keep the rules clear and to make sure riders’ rights are understood. That includes supporting public education about what Arizona law allows, paying attention to how the new reckless-driving provision is enforced, and bringing documented problems to policymakers.

When a rider believes a citation was issued for conduct permitted under the law, details matter. Note the location, road speed limit, traffic conditions, the rider’s speed, the statute cited, and the case outcome. Share the information with ABATE so we can look for patterns and determine whether further action is needed.

Our work also includes motorcyclist profiling. A rider should not be treated as suspicious simply because of the motorcycle they ride, their lawful clothing, or their association with other riders. ABATE is working to develop a policy response that protects riders’ civil liberties while respecting legitimate law enforcement. Reports of specific incidents, with dates and available documentation, help us make that case responsibly.

How riders can help: Learn the lane-filtering requirements. Correct misinformation when it appears. Report enforcement concerns with specific facts. Attend ABATE meet-ups and help us explain the law to other riders and the public.

3. Improving access to training and making safety funding accountable

ABATE supports rider education and training. The question for 2027 is how Arizona can make training more accessible and ensure the dedicated Motorcycle Safety Fund serves riders statewide.

HB 2114’s scholarship provision creates an opportunity for riders from rural or low-income areas to access motorcycle education. The law also directs one dollar from each motorcycle registration fee into the Motorcycle Safety Fund.

ABATE will be watching whether that money reaches riders who need it. We want to know where training is offered, how many seats are available, how scholarships are awarded, and whether riders in rural communities can take a course without unreasonable travel or scheduling burdens.

Safety work should be based on evidence. Arizona’s crash data tells us that motorcyclist deaths remain a serious concern. It does not, by itself, tell us what caused each crash or whether a rider had completed training. Crashes can involve road design, visibility, driver attention, speed, impairment, weather, mechanical issues, or a combination of factors. Good policy needs to consider the full picture.

ABATE is working to promote practical safety efforts that include riders and other road users. That can include accessible training, public education for drivers, better collection of crash information, and attention to road conditions that pose particular risks to motorcycles.

How riders can help: Tell us where training is difficult to access. Share experiences with scholarship applications or course availability. Report recurring road hazards. Support programs that educate all road users, not only motorcyclists.

4. Putting motorcycles into transportation planning and autonomous-vehicle policy

Motorcycles have different visibility, acceleration, braking, and lane-position characteristics from passenger cars. Those differences matter in road design, construction zones, traffic signals, pavement maintenance, and automated driving systems.

ABATE is developing a Motorcycle-Neutral Transportation Planning proposal. The goal is to make sure transportation agencies consider riders when planning road projects and traffic systems. Issues can include pavement defects, grooved surfaces, temporary lane markings, drainage grates, construction detours, signal detection, and visibility at intersections.

Riders know where these problems occur because we encounter them directly. A report about a recurring road hazard is more useful when it includes the location, date, photographs if available, and any response from the responsible agency. ABATE can use those examples to show policymakers why riders should be included in transportation planning.

Autonomous vehicles create another safety concern. Arizona permits their operation under existing law, and ADOT lists companies that have submitted to test or operate autonomous vehicles in the state.

In 2026, Senate Bill 1417 proposed new safety and data requirements for autonomous vehicles, including motorcycle-specific detection and response testing. The bill did not become law. ABATE is working on the issue because motorcyclists need to know that automated systems can detect and respond to motorcycles in real-world traffic conditions, including at intersections, in low light, and when a motorcycle is partly obscured.

Riders do not need to oppose new technology to ask for meaningful safety standards. We can support clear crash reporting, preservation of information needed to investigate collisions, and testing that includes motorcycles. The public should be able to assess whether these systems are responding safely to the people who share the road with them.

ABATE has prepared proposals on autonomous-vehicle safety, data, and rider awareness. That work will be stronger with input from riders who have encountered these vehicles, near misses, or roadway situations that expose gaps in current policy.

How riders can help: Report road-design hazards and signal problems. Share firsthand experiences with autonomous vehicles. Attend local transportation meetings when projects affect roads you ride. Ask your local and state officials how motorcycle impacts are considered.

5. Protecting the right to repair and maintain motorcycles

ABATE has been working on a Motorcycle Right to Repair proposal. Motorcycle owners should be able to maintain and repair their bikes, and independent repair shops should have access to the tools and information needed to do that work safely.

Modern motorcycles may rely on electronic controls, diagnostic software, specialized tools, and manufacturer-controlled service information. If owners and qualified independent mechanics cannot access what they need, a routine repair can become more costly or leave the owner with only one service option.

A workable policy should address access to diagnostic tools, repair manuals, software, replacement parts, and relevant service information. It should protect legitimate safety and cybersecurity concerns while preserving the owner’s ability to choose a qualified repair provider.

This issue affects riders across Arizona. Independent repair shops can offer local service and specialized experience. Owners may need a shop closer to home, or one with experience working on a particular type of motorcycle. Access to accurate service information also matters for maintaining brakes, tires, steering, lights, and electronic safety systems.

ABATE needs riders to share real examples. If you have been unable to obtain a part, diagnostic code, repair manual, or software needed to service your motorcycle, document what happened. Include the motorcycle’s make and model, the repair needed, the cost, any delay, and whether a dealer or independent shop could complete the work. Those details can help us write legislation that addresses actual barriers.

How riders can help: Share repair problems with ABATE. Support local independent repair businesses. Help us identify whether the issue is access to parts, tools, software, service information, or a mix of them.

This is ABATE’s work. Riders make it possible.

ABATE’s legislative work does not happen only at the Capitol. It begins with riders who share what they see, help shape proposals, meet with lawmakers, and make sure motorcycle issues stay on the agenda.

A strong policy proposal needs more than a title. It needs a clear description of the problem, a workable solution, and evidence from the people affected. When riders participate, ABATE can bring lawmakers firsthand experience alongside statutory language and policy research.

There are several ways to help:

• Join ABATE of Arizona and take part in the organization’s policy work.

• Attend meetings and events where riders can discuss priorities and help prepare for the session.

• Share your experience with registration, training, lane rules, road conditions, autonomous vehicles, or motorcycle repair.

• Contact your legislators and explain why these issues matter to you.

• Support ABATE’s work not only through membership, but also participation, and financial support.

• Attend Motorcycle Day at the Dome on January 21, 2027, and speak directly with Arizona legislators about the issues that affect riders.

Motorcycle Day at the Dome is an opportunity to meet lawmakers face to face and make sure they hear from the people who ride. Make plans to attend. Bring another rider. Be ready to explain one issue that matters to you and what you think Arizona should do about it.

The 2027 agenda is already taking shape. HB 2114’s registration and endorsement requirement takes effect January 1. Arizona’s lane-use rules and reckless-driving penalties require clear public understanding. The Motorcycle Safety Fund needs oversight. Transportation planning and autonomous-vehicle rules must account for motorcycles. And motorcycle owners should have a fair chance to repair and maintain the bikes they own.

ABATE is doing the work to move these issues forward. We need riders to help set priorities, bring evidence, speak with lawmakers, and support the organization that represents them at the Capitol.

If you ride, these policies affect you. Join us, get involved, and help ABATE make sure Arizona’s 2027 motorcycle agenda reflects the people who ride Arizona’s roads.

Notes

[1] H.B. 2114, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026), ch. 246 (codified in part at Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-2014).

[2] Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., Traffic Fatalities on Arizona Roads Decline for Third Year in a Row (Aug. 27, 2026).

[3] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-2014 (2026); H.B. 2114, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. § 2 (Ariz. 2026), ch. 246.

[4] H.B. 2114, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. § 1 (Ariz. 2026), ch. 246.

[5] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-903(A)–(F) (2026); H.B. 2941, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026), ch. 261.

[6] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-2010(B) (2026).

[7] Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-9701 to -9708 (2026); S.B. 1417, 57th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026) (introduced but not enacted).

On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two consolidated challenges to restrictions on AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Court will consider whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess those rifles. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has joined a multistate amicus brief supporting the governments defending the restrictions.1

That fact calls for precision. Arizona is not a party to either case. Mayes has not changed Arizona law by joining the brief, and Arizona has not adopted the bans challenged in Cook County and Connecticut. The filing is a legal argument to the Supreme Court. It asks the justices to uphold the restrictions and to recognize that states and local governments may regulate what the amici characterize as unusually dangerous weapons.

The distinction matters, but it does not make the filing insignificant. An attorney general’s amicus brief is a formal statement of the legal position the state has chosen to present to the Court. In this case, Arizona has joined an argument that governments may prohibit semiautomatic rifles despite their widespread civilian ownership for lawful purposes. That position is in tension with the core claim advanced by the challengers: that the Second Amendment’s text and history do not permit a categorical ban on arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens.

Arizona’s attorney general is entitled to make that argument. The public is entitled to examine it.

What Arizona joined

The brief was filed by Massachusetts, New Jersey, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia in support of the respondents. The brief identifies Arizona among the amici and argues that the challenged laws are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.2

The brief’s central claim is that governments have a longstanding authority to regulate weapons they deem unusually dangerous, including weapons that become popular before restrictions are adopted. It argues that AR-15-platform rifles fit within that tradition because of their military design, their potential for rapid fire, and their use in mass shootings.3 It also rejects the challengers’ reliance on common ownership, calling a circulation-based test historically unsound and warning that it could limit future legislative action.4

That argument is not the same as saying Arizona should enact an assault-weapons ban. The brief does not ask the Supreme Court to impose a ban on Arizona residents, and Arizona’s participation does not itself create one. The case concerns laws adopted by Cook County and Connecticut. The state’s filing supports those governments’ authority to maintain their restrictions.

Still, the constitutional question is national in scope. If the Court accepts the amici’s approach, it could uphold broad restrictions on rifles that are legally possessed by millions of Americans in many states. If the Court accepts the challengers’ position, it could limit governments’ ability to ban firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. Arizona has put its name on one side of that debate.

The brief’s legal position should be assessed on its reasoning, not on assumptions about the attorney general’s motives. The filing does not establish that Mayes seeks to enact an Arizona ban. It does establish that she has urged the Supreme Court to uphold bans adopted elsewhere and to recognize a broad power to restrict rifles the amici describe as unusually dangerous.

The Supreme Court’s test turns on text and history

The Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment decisions provide the framework for the dispute. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for self-defense in the home.5 The right is not limited to service in an organized militia. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court applied that right to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.6

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Court set out the current method for reviewing firearm restrictions. When the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct at issue, the government must show that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.7 Courts may not uphold a restriction merely because they believe its public-safety benefits outweigh the burden on the right. The Constitution supplies the governing rule; a court does not replace it with a policy balance.

For this case, the sequence is straightforward. First, the Court asks whether possessing the rifles at issue is conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s text. Second, if it is, the governments must demonstrate that the restrictions fit the relevant historical tradition. The challengers argue that modern semiautomatic rifles are “arms” and that the Second Amendment covers possession of them. They say the bans fail the historical inquiry because the record does not show a tradition of prohibiting ordinary people from possessing commonly owned rifles for lawful purposes.8

The states supporting the bans offer a different historical principle. They argue that governments have long regulated weapons considered unusually dangerous, and that modern bans are an application of that tradition to current conditions.9 The dispute is not whether public safety is a legitimate government concern. It is whether the historical record supports the specific means used here: a categorical prohibition on ordinary possession of a class of rifles.

That is a constitutional question, not a referendum on whether mass shootings are terrible. They are. The Court must still determine whether the governments have identified a sufficiently similar historical tradition to justify these laws.

“Dangerous” does not settle whether a weapon is protected

The amicus brief relies heavily on the description of AR-15-platform rifles as unusually dangerous. It argues that governments have historically regulated weapons that pose a disproportionate threat to public safety, even when those weapons have lawful uses or are possessed by many people.10 The brief points to English and American laws concerning weapons such as launcegays, crossbows, Bowie knives, pistols, and machine guns.11

The challengers contest both the historical analogies and the way the states describe the Second Amendment’s common-use principle. They argue that the governments’ examples do not show a tradition of banning ordinary possession of firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes. Some historical laws addressed carrying weapons in a threatening manner, public terror, or particular forms of conduct. The challengers say those measures are not equivalent to laws that prohibit a person from possessing a rifle in the home without any threatening conduct or misuse.12

That distinction is central under Bruen. Historical analogues do not need to be identical to a modern law, but they must be similar in the relevant ways, including how and why they burden the right. A law aimed at threatening conduct does not automatically support a categorical ban on possession. A restriction on a weapon’s public carry does not automatically establish a tradition of forbidding its possession at home. Broad references to “public safety” cannot do all the work.

The phrase “dangerous and unusual” also matters. Heller described a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”13 A weapon may be dangerous in the ordinary sense and still be common, useful, and protected. Firearms are designed to be lethal. If danger alone were enough to remove an arm from constitutional protection, the exception could swallow the right.

The states’ position tries to address this by describing the AR-15 as unusually dangerous compared with other firearms. They argue that its capacity for sustained, rapid, accurate fire, its role in mass shootings, and the severity of injuries it can inflict distinguish it from ordinary arms.14 Those claims are part of the legal and factual record. They do not resolve the constitutional analysis by themselves. The question remains whether the history supports a restriction of this kind, and whether the government may treat a widely owned firearm as outside the right because officials judge its risks too great.

Common lawful ownership cannot be dismissed as a counting exercise

The challengers’ case relies on evidence that AR-15-platform and similar rifles are widely owned. Their merits brief cites a 2026 survey of 16,888 gun owners estimating that about 26 million Americans own at least one AR-15 or similar semiautomatic rifle. It reports that surveyed owners identified defense, target shooting, and hunting among their reasons for ownership.15 A separate 2022 survey cited in the brief estimated that about 16 million Americans owned AR-15-style rifles.16

These are survey estimates, not an official census of firearms. The precise number can be debated. Yet the record does not describe a rare weapon possessed by a small number of people for illicit purposes. The challengers point to widespread ownership, lawful availability across much of the country, and civilian use for familiar purposes.

The Supreme Court has described the AR-15 as “the most popular rifle in the country” and noted that it is “bought by many ordinary consumers.”17 That observation is important because the Second Amendment inquiry cannot simply ignore how ordinary Americans possess and use arms. Heller treated common use as relevant to whether a weapon falls within the right’s protection. It upheld the individual right to possess handguns in part because handguns are widely chosen for self-defense and are among the most popular firearms in the country.18

The states’ brief characterizes the challengers’ argument as a “circulation-based test” that would make popularity alone decisive.19 The challengers’ position is more specific: common lawful use is evidence that the rifles are not “unusual,” and the governments must still satisfy the historical test. The argument is not that sales figures automatically invalidate every regulation of every commonly owned arm. It is that common possession must carry constitutional weight, especially when the government seeks to ban an entire class of firearms.

The difference between those formulations matters. If common use is irrelevant whenever a legislature asserts unusual danger, then the public’s lawful possession of a firearm may have no meaningful role in deciding whether that firearm is protected. The “unusual” part of “dangerous and unusual” would lose force. The government could define a class of arms as too dangerous and then treat common ownership as constitutionally beside the point.

The states respond that common use cannot be an absolute bar on regulation. They point to machine guns and to historical examples of weapons that, they say, were restricted despite their popularity.20 That objection identifies a real question for the Court: common use is not a magic phrase that answers every firearms case. But the proper answer is not to disregard common ownership. The Court should apply its text-and-history framework and ask whether the government has established a historical basis for banning these particular arms.

A semiautomatic rifle is not a machine gun

Some of the arguments supporting the bans draw comparisons between the AR-15 and military firearms. The states’ brief emphasizes that the AR-15 platform shares features with military rifles and argues that the design is associated with combat.21 The challengers respond that an AR-15 is semiautomatic, not fully automatic. A semiautomatic firearm fires one round with each pull of the trigger. A fully automatic firearm continues firing while the trigger is held, subject to the weapon’s operation. Those are different mechanisms.

That difference matters to both the factual and historical arguments. The Supreme Court has recognized that machine guns may be treated differently from ordinary firearms.22 But if government can extend a machine-gun rationale to semiautomatic rifles based on shared appearance, heritage, or design features, the distinction between the two kinds of firearms may disappear in practice.

The constitutional question should not turn on whether a rifle looks military or shares some components with a military firearm. It should turn on the arm’s operation, its ordinary lawful possession, and the historical tradition relevant to the challenged restriction. A label such as “weapon of war” is not a substitute for that analysis.

The same point applies to feature-based definitions. The challenged laws identify prohibited firearms through named models and combinations of features. The states argue that the regulated class is narrow. The challengers argue that governments should not be able to prohibit a protected rifle by listing design features associated with handling, configuration, or appearance.23 The Court will need to consider whether those features make the rifles historically analogous to arms that could be banned, or whether the laws simply target commonly possessed modern rifles through their design.

Arizona’s own constitution makes the debate especially relevant here

Arizona’s Constitution states: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired.”24 That language does not decide the federal question in Viramontes and Grant. Arizona is not a party, and the Supreme Court is reviewing federal constitutional claims involving Illinois and Connecticut laws.

The provision does give Arizona residents a reason to examine the position their attorney general has joined. Arizona’s constitution expressly describes an individual right to bear arms for personal or state defense. Mayes has joined a brief arguing that governments may prohibit a class of semiautomatic rifles even though the challengers say millions of Americans possess those rifles for lawful purposes, including defense.

This does not mean Mayes has asked to repeal, amend, or reinterpret Article II, Section 26. The brief argues about the scope of government authority under the federal Second Amendment. It supports bans enacted by other jurisdictions. The state constitution remains in force, and the Supreme Court case does not directly adjudicate Arizona’s law.

Still, there is a question of constitutional principle. If Arizona’s attorney general argues that the federal right permits other governments to ban arms that are widely owned and used for lawful purposes, how does her office understand the limits on that power under Arizona’s own constitutional language? The answer should be stated carefully. Joining an amicus brief is not the same as proposing an Arizona ban. It is a decision to urge the Court to recognize a government power that could be invoked elsewhere.

That decision is a matter of public accountability. The attorney general represents Arizona in litigation and makes choices about which legal positions the state supports. A brief in a major Supreme Court case is not a private comment or an offhand interview. It is a formal submission asking the Court to adopt a rule.

The public-safety argument deserves an answer, not deference

The strongest argument for the respondents is rooted in the real consequences of mass shootings. Connecticut’s brief describes the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which 20 children and six educators were killed.25 It argues that rifles like the AR-15 can enable a shooter to inflict severe harm in a short time and that states need authority to respond to those risks.

That argument should be addressed without minimizing the victims’ suffering. The violence that led Connecticut to strengthen its law was devastating. Public officials have a duty to protect residents. Legislatures may investigate, evaluate evidence, and adopt laws to prevent violence.

The existence of a serious public-safety problem does not end constitutional review. Bruen requires a historical justification for restrictions within the Second Amendment’s scope. The government cannot replace that requirement by showing that it had a substantial reason for acting. Constitutional rights often limit government action in circumstances where officials face genuine dangers and believe a restriction would help.

The challengers argue that government can respond to violent crime through measures consistent with the Constitution, including laws addressing misuse, threats, and prohibited conduct. They say those alternatives do not require a ban on ordinary possession of an entire category of rifles.26 The Court will have to decide whether history supports the government’s broader approach or whether the Second Amendment imposes a limit on categorical bans.

A constitutional rule should not depend on whether the public finds the protected arm familiar, attractive, or politically popular. Nor should it depend on whether a firearm has been used in a horrific crime. The central issue remains whether the arm is covered by the text and whether the government has shown a relevant historical tradition supporting the ban.

What Mayes’s brief means for Arizona

Mayes’s participation should not be overstated. She did not file the lawsuits. Arizona is not a respondent defending its own ban. Arizona residents are not subject to Cook County’s ordinance or Connecticut’s statute merely because their attorney general joined a brief. The filing does not enact a new restriction in Arizona.

Its meaning is still clear. Arizona joined a brief that supports the respondents and asks the Supreme Court to uphold the challenged restrictions. The brief says governments may regulate weapons that they consider unusually dangerous, even when those arms are owned for lawful purposes. It challenges a reading of Heller under which common lawful ownership weighs strongly against a ban.27

Arizona residents who support firearm restrictions may agree with the position Mayes joined. They may believe that states need broad authority to prohibit rifles associated with mass shootings. Those residents can fairly argue that a state should be able to act before another tragedy occurs.

Arizona residents who oppose such bans may see the brief as a warning that the state’s attorney general is endorsing a rule that could weaken protection for firearms beyond the two laws currently before the Court. They may argue that describing a commonly owned semiautomatic rifle as unusually dangerous is not enough to remove it from the Second Amendment’s protection.

Both sides should recognize the institutional point: the amicus brief does not decide the case. It gives the Court one group of states’ legal arguments. The justices will consider those arguments alongside the challengers’ briefs, the federal government’s amicus brief supporting the challengers, other amici, and the governing precedents.

But the filing is still newsworthy because it makes Arizona’s position visible. The attorney general did not remain neutral. She joined the respondents’ side.

The Court should apply the constitutional test, not a policy preference

The Supreme Court should resolve these cases by applying the rule it has already announced. Heller recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms and treated common use for lawful purposes as important. Bruen requires the government to justify a modern firearm restriction through the Nation’s historical tradition rather than policy balancing.

That framework leaves room for many regulations. It does not guarantee that every firearm or every use is immune from government action. The question is whether the history supports a categorical ban on rifles that are widely possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

The respondents’ brief argues that historical restrictions on unusually dangerous weapons justify these laws. The challengers argue those examples are too different from a modern ban on ordinary possession, and that the common-use principle places the rifles within the right’s protection. The Court should test each side’s historical claims against the actual legal burden imposed by the bans.

Arizona’s participation in the respondents’ brief adds a state-level dimension. Arizona’s Constitution separately protects the individual citizen’s right to bear arms in defense of self or state. Mayes’s brief does not change that text or decide how it applies. It does show that Arizona’s chief legal officer has supported a federal constitutional position that permits other governments to prohibit semiautomatic rifles that many Americans possess for lawful purposes.

The right question for the Court is not whether these rifles are controversial. It is whether the government can ban them under the Constitution. The right question for Arizona residents is whether the position Mayes joined reflects the limits they believe should bind government.

When the Court hears Viramontes and Grant, it will consider the scope of a constitutional right. Arizona’s attorney general has told the Court where she stands. Arizona residents should read the brief, examine its history, and decide whether that position fits the Constitution the state and nation are sworn to uphold.

A combat injury can end a military career years before a service member expected to leave. Under current law, some of those medically retired service members then face an offset that reduces their military retired pay because they receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation.

The Major Richard Star Act would remove that offset for a defined group: military retirees with combat-related disabilities who were medically retired under Chapter 61 of Title 10 before completing 20 years of creditable service. The House Rules Committee’s substitute text, reflected in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) October 27, 2026, estimate, is narrower than the bill as originally introduced. CBO estimates the revised bill would increase direct spending by $12.75 billion from 2027 through 2036. It would allow eligible retirees to receive both their full military retired pay and their VA disability compensation.1

The estimate is substantial, and it deserves a straightforward discussion. But the number alone does not tell us whether the policy is justified. That requires looking at who the bill covers, how the offset works, what the revised text changes, and what the government is asking this group of veterans to give up under current law.

What the Act would change

Military retirement pay and VA disability compensation serve different purposes. Military retired pay is tied to a person’s military service and retirement status. VA disability compensation is a tax-free monthly benefit for veterans with disabilities caused or aggravated by military service.2

Yet the law generally prevents a veteran from receiving the full amount of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The law applies an offset, reducing retired pay by the amount of VA disability compensation. Congress has created exceptions over time, including Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), but those exceptions do not restore the full amount for every disabled retiree.3

The current version of the Major Richard Star Act would address the offset for combat-injured retirees who:

• were retired from military service for disability under Chapter 61 of Title 10;

• have fewer than 20 years of creditable service; and

• qualify for CRSC because their disability is combat-related.

For that group, the bill would remove the reduction in military retired pay caused by the VA offset, allowing the veteran to receive full retired pay and VA disability compensation concurrently. It does not change the formula for calculating Chapter 61 retired pay, raise anyone’s VA disability rating, or make every medically retired veteran eligible. Eligibility for the covered group turns on the existing CRSC and Chapter 61 rules.4

That scope matters. The text CBO scored is a revised version of H.R. 2102, as modified by H. Res. 1247. CBO says the earlier, introduced version would have made additional changes, including expanding Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP) eligibility for some Chapter 61 retirees regardless of combat-related status and removing a cap affecting some retirees with 20 or more years of service. The revised text leaves those changes out. That difference accounts for almost all of the $65 billion gap between the original bill’s estimate and the estimate for the modified version.5

The point is not that the earlier estimate was wrong. It was for a broader version of the bill. The new estimate is for the narrower text the House is considering. When people cite the $78.1 billion estimate associated with the introduced bill, they should identify it as the estimate for that prior version, not as the cost CBO assigns to the current, modified measure.

How the offset affects the covered retirees

Chapter 61 of Title 10 allows a service member to be retired because of physical disability. For a service member who receives military retired pay and VA disability compensation, the general offset can reduce retired pay. CRSC offers a partial remedy for retirees whose disabilities are deemed combat-related, but for Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years, the combined CRSC and remaining retired pay is limited by the amount of retired pay they would have received based on their years of service.6

That limit can be consequential for a veteran whose disability retirement is calculated on the basis of a serious injury, but whose time in uniform was cut short by that injury. CBO offers a simplified example: a Chapter 61 retiree with five years of service and a 100 percent disability rating could have gross disability retired pay equal to 75 percent of the relevant basic-pay average, subject to the applicable disability-retirement rules. But the longevity limit for a five-year career would be much lower. The current CRSC framework constrains the combined retirement-system payment by that service-based amount.7

A person’s military career may end early because of the injury or illness that qualifies them for disability retirement. That does not make the rules for calculating military retired pay irrelevant. It means the service member’s career ended under disability-retirement rules rather than after reaching the ordinary 20-year point. The Star Act’s policy judgment is that, for this limited group of combat-injured retirees, the VA payment should not further reduce the military retired pay to which the member is entitled under Chapter 61.

The bill would not mean every Chapter 61 retiree gets a new payment. It would not extend to every veteran with a VA rating or every disability retiree. The current bill targets those with fewer than 20 years of service whose disabilities qualify as combat-related under CRSC rules. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service identifies qualifying categories that include disabilities resulting from armed conflict, hazardous duty, an instrumentality of war, or simulated war, with eligibility determined through the applicable service process.8

Who would benefit

CBO reports that the Department of Defense made CRSC payments in September 2025 to about 58,000 Chapter 61 retirees who had fewer than 20 years of service. CBO projects the number will rise to about 65,000 by 2036. These are estimates of the population relevant to the bill’s cost, not a guarantee that every person counted will see the same change in compensation.9

CBO also estimates that the average monthly disability offset for these retirees was about $2,275 in September 2025, while their average CRSC payment was about $825. Under the modified bill, CBO estimates, covered retirees would receive about $1,450 more per month in total compensation on average than under current law.10

Those averages are useful for understanding the scale of the issue, but they do not describe every individual case. Actual benefits depend on the person’s service, retired-pay calculation, VA compensation, and CRSC determination. A nationwide estimate cannot substitute for a veteran’s individual pay record. Still, the figures help answer a basic question: does the offset merely create a technical accounting adjustment, or does it materially reduce income for the affected retirees? On CBO’s analysis, it materially reduces it.

The population is also limited by several existing eligibility rules. A person must be a Chapter 61 disability retiree with fewer than 20 years of creditable service and a qualifying combat-related disability for CRSC purposes. This is not a general increase for all veterans or all military retirees. The policy is directed at people whose combat-related conditions led to disability retirement before they had a 20-year career.

That distinction helps explain why the Act is a targeted remedy. It does not try to settle every question about concurrent receipt across the military retirement system. Congress may debate broader reforms separately. The current bill is about whether this specific group should continue to have its military retired pay reduced when it receives VA disability compensation for a combat-related disability.

What the new CBO estimate says

The estimate released October 27 is the central new development. CBO estimates that the modified H.R. 2102 would increase direct spending by $12.75 billion over fiscal years 2027 through 2036, including $5.75 billion over 2027 through 2031. The estimate assumes enactment in calendar year 2026, with retirement payments affected beginning in 2027.

CBO separately estimates $7.45 billion in spending subject to appropriation over the same ten-year period. That figure concerns accrual payments to the Military Retirement Fund for future retirement benefits. CBO explains that these are intragovernmental transactions and do not have a net effect on federal spending. They should not be added to the $12.75 billion in direct spending and presented as though CBO had estimated $20.2 billion in net new spending.

The distinction is worth stating plainly: the estimate of direct spending, and its effect on the deficit, is $12.75 billion over the ten-year window. The $7.45 billion related to accrual payments is also part of CBO’s budgetary presentation, but those transfers between federal accounts are not additional net federal outlays. Any appropriations connected with those accrual payments would still be subject to the appropriations process. The two numbers describe different budget concepts.

The CBO estimate is not a policy recommendation. CBO estimates federal budget effects; it does not decide whether a bill is fair, whether the benefit is warranted, or whether Congress should pay for it through offsets elsewhere. The estimate should inform that decision, not replace it.

CBO also identifies uncertainty about the future number of retirees eligible for the change. For example, if the number of eligible Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years remained at its current level over the next decade, CBO estimates the direct-spending increase would be about $1 billion lower. That uncertainty does not erase the cost. It does show that the estimate depends in part on how the relevant population changes over time.

The Act would increase direct spending in later decades too. CBO estimates direct spending would rise by more than $2.5 billion in each of the four consecutive ten-year periods beginning in 2037. It also estimates on-budget deficits would rise by more than $5 billion in each of those periods. These long-term effects belong in the discussion. Supporters should not suggest that the bill is costless or that the first ten-year estimate captures every fiscal consequence.

Why the Act should be supported

The strongest argument for the Act is that it addresses a mismatch between the reasons for two forms of compensation. Military retired pay reflects service and the rules for disability retirement. VA compensation recognizes service-connected disability. Congress has permitted concurrent receipt in some circumstances, but a combat-injured Chapter 61 retiree with fewer than 20 years can still have the military retired-pay calculation constrained by an offset tied to VA compensation.

The Act says that, for the defined group, the two payments should be allowed to coexist. The veteran is not made whole by receiving VA disability compensation if that payment triggers a reduction in military retired pay. The government is treating one benefit as a reason to reduce another. Support for the bill rests on a view that the two benefits answer distinct questions: what retirement pay is due under military disability-retirement law, and what compensation is due for a service-connected disability?

That argument is especially compelling when the service member’s career ended early because of a combat-related disability. A 20-year benchmark is familiar in military retirement policy, but a combat injury can prevent a person from reaching it. The law should be careful about turning that injury into the reason the retiree receives less of the combined compensation than a longer-serving retiree might. The Star Act does not erase every service-based limit in military retirement law. It removes a specific offset for a specific population.

The bill also reflects a principle of equal treatment within a system that has been changed incrementally. Congress has already created CRDP for some retirees and CRSC for some retirees with qualifying combat-related disabilities. Those programs recognize that concurrent receipt is not inherently impossible. The outstanding policy question is whether Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years should remain subject to a limiting rule when their disabilities are combat-related and they have been medically retired. The Act’s answer is no.11

Support is also warranted because the eligibility boundary is connected to the bill’s purpose. CRSC rules require a determination that the disability is combat-related, and Chapter 61 status requires a disability retirement. The measure does not give benefits based solely on a general claim of hardship or on veteran status. It relies on existing legal and administrative determinations. A targeted rule is easier to explain to taxpayers and lawmakers than a broad promise that every retirement and disability payment should always be paid in full regardless of circumstances.

There is a fairness argument, but fairness is not a substitute for fiscal analysis. Congress should understand the amount involved, identify how the benefit would be administered, and decide whether it is a priority among competing federal obligations. Yet the existence of a cost does not resolve the underlying question. A government benefit is not unjustified merely because it costs money, and a cost estimate does not tell Congress whether the current rule properly allocates that cost.

The cost is real, and should be treated honestly

Supporters should avoid minimizing the estimate. CBO projects $12.75 billion in direct spending over ten years for the revised bill. The monthly benefit increase is meaningful for recipients, and it is large enough to be meaningful in the federal budget. Lawmakers should not be asked to support the bill on the mistaken assumption that the number is negligible.

But the number should also be described accurately. CBO’s current estimate is for the modified version of H.R. 2102, not the earlier introduced bill. The introduced text was estimated to increase direct spending by $78.1 billion over 2026 through 2036. The modified bill’s $12.75 billion estimate reflects the removal of the broader CRDP changes and the narrowed eligibility to combat-related Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years.12

This is why precision matters in the policy debate. Using the prior score to imply that the current text costs $78.1 billion misstates the current estimate. Treating the $7.45 billion appropriation-related figure as additional net federal cost also misstates the estimate. On the other hand, calling the bill a $12.75 billion change without acknowledging that the impact continues beyond the ten-year window would leave out information CBO has provided.

An honest case for the Act can hold both points. The legislation has a substantial direct-spending cost, and the revised text is materially narrower than the version associated with the earlier $78.1 billion estimate. CBO’s analysis makes the fiscal tradeoff clearer. That clarity gives Congress a better basis for deciding whether and how to proceed.

If members believe the benefit should be offset, they can identify a funding approach and defend it. If they believe the cost should be accommodated within the budget, they can explain that choice. What they should not do is avoid the policy question by relying on a score for text that is no longer before them, or imply that a broader package is the only possible vehicle for passage.

The public debate should also avoid treating a cost estimate as though it measures the worth of the people who would receive the benefit. Cost estimates measure the projected effect on federal accounts under specified assumptions. They do not quantify the value of military service, the severity of a disability, or the fairness of an offset. Those judgments remain for elected representatives.

The bill’s namesake and the purpose of the legislation

The Act is named for Army Major Richard A. Star, a combat engineer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and later advocated for disabled and medically retired veterans. Star died of cancer in 2021 while the legislation was still being pursued. His military biography records his service in Afghanistan and Iraq, including route-clearance operations.

Naming a bill after a veteran can make a complicated policy easier to recognize, but the law should be judged by what it does. Here the name points to a problem that reaches beyond one person: a rule that can reduce military retired pay for a combat-injured retiree because that veteran receives disability compensation for a service-connected condition.

That story should not obscure the law’s boundaries. The bill does not promise every wounded service member a full career pension. It does not abolish Chapter 61 eligibility rules. It does not eliminate the distinction between disability compensation and retirement pay. It would change the offset for a limited class of combat-related disability retirees with fewer than 20 years of service.

The personal story matters because it helps explain why the measure exists, but the policy case does not depend on sentiment alone. It is grounded in the structure of concurrent receipt, in the existing CRSC framework, and in the specific effect of the service-based limit on this group.

What the Act does not do

A clear case for the Act must be clear about what it leaves untouched.

The revised text does not extend CRDP to every Chapter 61 retiree with a VA disability rating of at least 50 percent. CBO notes that the original introduced version would have expanded CRDP eligibility in a way that covered a much broader group. The revised version removes those provisions.13

It does not remove the disability offset for all military retirees. It does not apply to an ordinary veteran who receives VA disability compensation but has no military retired pay to offset. It does not eliminate the 20-year distinction across the entire retirement system. And it does not automatically qualify every disability retiree for CRSC. Existing eligibility determinations remain important.

These limits matter for two reasons. First, they help the public understand who would receive the benefit. Second, they show that Congress can address a specific inequity without resolving every dispute about military retirement and disability policy in a single bill. Legislators may favor broader reform, or oppose it, but those questions should not be confused with the narrower measure now scored by CBO.

A law’s boundaries also give Congress a practical implementation task. The legislation would have to be applied through the retirement and compensation systems already administered by the services, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, DFAS, and VA. CBO assumes payments would begin in 2027 if enacted in 2026. Congress should expect clear implementation guidance so eligible retirees can understand how the change affects their accounts and what, if anything, they must do to receive it.14

A case for congressional action

The Major Richard Star Act deserves support because it targets an identifiable group facing a specific and consequential offset. A service member who is medically retired for a combat-related disability before reaching 20 years of service may qualify for both military retired pay and VA disability compensation, yet the current rules can prevent that retiree from receiving the full amounts concurrently. The revised Act would remove that offset for the group it covers.

The CBO estimate gives Congress the information needed to debate the cost. The projected $12.75 billion in direct spending over ten years is significant. It should be weighed against other priorities and, if Congress chooses, addressed through the budget process. The estimate for the currently considered version is far below the estimate for the earlier text because the House substitute narrows the bill to its core purpose. That is a meaningful difference, and it should be part of every public explanation of the score.

For supporters, the practical argument is direct: a combat-related disability that ends a military career before 20 years should not also be the reason that a retiree loses part of the military retired pay they are otherwise entitled to receive under disability-retirement rules. The VA payment serves a different purpose. The existing offset treats it as a reason to reduce the other benefit. The Star Act would change that result for a defined group.

Congress should pass the revised Major Richard Star Act as a standalone measure. It should explain its budgetary treatment accurately, give agencies clear instructions for implementation, and ensure eligible combat-injured retirees can understand the benefits available to them. Support for the bill does not require pretending that the cost is zero. It requires deciding that a targeted correction to the concurrent-receipt rules is worth paying for.

The central policy question is not whether the Star Act has a price. CBO has answered that. The question is whether the current law should continue to reduce the military retired pay of combat-injured Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years because they receive VA disability compensation. Congress should conclude that it should not.

Semper Fidelis!

In this episode of the Copper Dome Update Deep Dive, we examine how choices about age ranges, causes of death, and statistical categories shape the public conversation about children and firearms. Counting 18- and 19-year-olds alongside minors, combining homicides, suicides, and un…

Read more

The new laws cover emergency alerts by satellite, warnings about dating-app scams, Social Security enrollment for clergy, a new national park in Arizona, and several land tr…

Read more

That is where rider-led advocacy matters.

ABATE of Arizona works to represent motorcyclists in the legislative process and bring riders’ experience into public policy discussions. EPIC Policy Group supports that work with research, bill development, coalition outreach, and legislative advocacy. Together, those efforts help make sure motorcycle safety conversations include the people who ride, the evidence about where risk occurs, and practical proposals policymakers can evaluate.

The goal is not to turn every crash into a political argument. It is to make sure that public concern leads to useful questions and, where the facts support it, focused action.

Begin with Arizona’s facts

The scale of motorcycle safety deserves serious attention. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported 219 motorcyclists killed in Arizona in 2024. Across the United States, 6,228 motorcyclists died, accounting for 16 percent of all traffic fatalities. NHTSA also reported that the motorcycle fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled was nearly 27 times the rate for passenger-car occupants.1

These numbers establish the seriousness of the issue. They do not explain why a particular crash occurred or identify the best response. That takes closer analysis: where the crash happened, the road design, traffic conditions, time of day, speed, impairment, licensing, helmet use, visibility, and the actions of everyone involved.

Statewide totals are a starting point. ADOT’s crash reports can help advocates and decision-makers examine Arizona’s patterns, while county, corridor, and intersection-level information can show where a targeted response may be more useful.2 A focused review can help distinguish a recurring engineering problem from a driver-awareness gap, a training-access issue, or another concern that calls for a different solution.

ABATE’s members bring something essential to that work: first-hand knowledge of how Arizona roads function for riders. EPIC helps translate that experience into a policy record that can be understood and assessed by agency staff, legislators, and community partners. Rider experience does not replace crash data. It helps identify the questions the data should answer.

Pair real experiences with reliable evidence

Families and survivors can describe what a crash means beyond the moment of impact: the recovery, medical expenses, lost work, grief, and changes to daily life. Their testimony can give lawmakers a clear understanding of the human consequences of road-safety decisions.

A personal account is strongest when it is connected to the policy question at hand. If several crashes occur at the same intersection, advocates can pair local crash records with testimony from people who use that road. If the proposal concerns training access, riders can describe cost or distance barriers while enrollment and licensing information help define the scale of the problem. If the issue involves a specific rule, advocates can explain how riders and drivers understand it and ask whether the public information is clear.

This approach respects individual experiences without asking one story to prove a statewide trend. It also helps keep advocacy credible. A sound proposal identifies what is known, what remains uncertain, and how the public can tell whether a program or law is working.

Helmet use is one example where precision matters. NHTSA reported that 38 percent of Arizona motorcyclists killed in 2024 with known helmet status were not wearing helmets.3 That is a relevant safety measure, but it cannot establish the cause of any individual crash. Arizona law requires motorcycle operators and passengers under 18 to wear helmets; adults are not generally subject to a helmet requirement.4 ABATE and EPIC can support informed discussion about helmet use, access to protective equipment, and education while being clear that a universal helmet mandate would be a separate policy question for lawmakers and the public.

Practical safety policy includes more than one tool

Motorcycle safety is not a single-issue problem, and it rarely has a one-bill solution. The right response depends on the risk identified in the evidence. Arizona advocates can consider several approaches:

• Training and education. Arizona’s Motorcycle Operator Manual encourages riders, including experienced riders, to take a safety course.5 Advocates can examine course capacity, location, cost, and access for rural and lower-income riders. Scholarships can reduce barriers, and clear reporting can show who is reached and whether the program is meeting its goals.

• Driver awareness. Drivers may fail to see a motorcycle before turning or changing lanes, or may misjudge its speed and distance. Targeted education can address specific crash patterns and remind drivers that motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane.

• Protective equipment. Promoting DOT-compliant helmets and other protective gear is a practical safety measure. Public discussion of any change in law should be grounded in evidence and presented plainly, with the effect and limits of the proposal made clear.

• Clear rules and public information. Arizona permits a narrow form of lane filtering under A.R.S. § 28-903(F). It applies to a two-wheeled motorcycle passing a vehicle stopped in the same direction, under specified roadway and speed conditions, and at no more than 15 miles per hour.6 It is not general permission to ride between moving traffic. Clear public education and consistent data collection can help riders, drivers, and law enforcement understand the rule and its operation.

• Impaired riding and speed. NHTSA found that 25 percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes nationwide in 2024 were alcohol-impaired, and 37 percent were speeding.7 Those national figures support continued attention to sober riding and appropriate speed. Arizona-specific analysis can help determine where education or enforcement may have the greatest value.

Each option should be matched to a defined problem. Good advocacy asks: What risk are we trying to reduce? What evidence supports this response? Who will carry it out? What will it cost? What information will show whether it helped?

Put the Motorcycle Safety Fund to work

Arizona’s 2026 HB 2114 creates a timely opportunity to make safety resources more accessible. Its provisions take effect after December 31, 2026. Among other changes, the law directs a share of Motorcycle Safety Fund spending toward voluntary education, awareness, and training, and authorizes scholarships for rural or low-income participants.8

That creates work beyond passage of the bill. Riders and safety organizations can help identify communities that face barriers to training, make sure eligible riders know about scholarship opportunities, and ask agencies to report how funds are used. ABATE of Arizona can help bring rider perspectives into those conversations. EPIC Policy Group can support the policy follow-through by reviewing program details, communicating with decision-makers, and helping evaluate whether the law’s tools are reaching the riders they were designed to serve.

Public policy does not end when a governor signs a bill. The details of access, outreach, administration, and measurement determine whether a statutory opportunity becomes a useful program.

Treat safety as a shared responsibility

Motorcycle safety should not be framed as a concern that belongs only to riders. Riders make choices about training, speed, impairment, and protective equipment. Drivers have responsibilities too: remain attentive, check before turning or changing lanes, and allow motorcycles their full use of a lane. Public agencies and policymakers can review road design, signs, public information, crash-data quality, and enforcement practices.

A shared-responsibility approach does not assign equal blame in every collision. It recognizes that preventing crashes and reducing injuries can require action by riders, drivers, agencies, and lawmakers. The policy response should fit the facts of the problem being addressed.

How Arizona riders can help move the work forward

Riders and community members do not need to be professional lobbyists to contribute to a useful safety effort. A few practical steps can make a difference:

1. Identify the specific concern. Note the road, intersection, recurring behavior, or training barrier involved. A defined problem is easier to investigate than a general call to “make roads safer.”

2. Gather local information. Start with ADOT crash reports and request relevant details by location, crash type, and injury severity. Ask how terms are defined and identify gaps in the available information.

3. Share experiences with care. Invite survivors and families to participate only with their consent and on their terms. Connect testimony to the policy question without presenting one account as proof of a broad trend.

4. Bring riders and partners together. Rider organizations, training providers, emergency medical professionals, local governments, and road-safety groups may each see a different part of the problem. Their input can improve a proposal.

5. Ask for a specific action. The request might be to expand training scholarships, improve a targeted driver-awareness campaign, publish motorcycle-specific information, clarify public guidance, or evaluate a defined law.

6. Follow the results. Track whether a program reaches its intended communities and whether relevant safety indicators change over time. Be careful to distinguish a change that followed a policy from one the policy can be shown to have caused.

ABATE of Arizona gives motorcyclists a way to bring their experience into the policy process. EPIC Policy Group helps turn that experience into research, proposals, and sustained engagement with Arizona decision-makers. The work is practical: identify the issue, make the case, build support, and stay involved after the vote.

A crash may bring motorcycle safety into public view. Lasting progress depends on the work that follows: local evidence, candid testimony, rider participation, clear proposals, and follow-through. That is the work ABATE of Arizona and EPIC Policy Group are advancing for Arizona’s motorcycling community.

Join ABATE of Arizona, stay engaged in the decisions affecting riders, and help make your experience part of the public conversation. Learn more about ABATE of Arizona and EPIC Policy Group’s policy and transportation work or advocacy services.

Arizona’s Constitution protects the individual citizen’s right to bear arms in defense of self or state. State law also permits broad lawful carry and limits local firearm regulation. Cato recognizes those protections while giving Governor Katie Hobbs a C for vetoing bills that would have restored firearm rights. A state can lead the nation and still have meaningful work before its Legislature. Our task in 2027 is to identify specific gaps and propose language that people, officials, and courts can apply.2

We have a concrete 2026 success to build upon. Arizona law now requires legislative approval by joint resolution before the Game and Fish Commission can close a shooting range covered by section 17-621. That requirement applies to the ranges defined in the statute, not every shooting facility. For 2027, we should investigate whether reduced hours, lost programs, or neglected maintenance threaten access even when a covered range remains formally open. Any new measure should respond to documented conditions. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 17-621(B)–(C).3

One leading proposal is the Arizona Adult Constitutional Carry Act. Under current Arizona law, otherwise eligible adults ages eighteen through twenty generally cannot carry a concealed weapon on the same terms as people twenty-one and older. Statutory exceptions and a limited military permit provision require careful treatment. Our developing bill should explain exactly how it would change state carry rules while preserving other applicable prohibitions. It would not, by itself, change federal purchase law. The draft still needs final scope, organizational review, and a sponsor.4

Municipal preemption is another priority. Section 13-3108 already restricts local firearm regulation and provides remedies. The question is whether its compliance and enforcement provisions work when a city adopts or applies an unlawful rule. In 2025, Senate Bill 1705 passed both chambers before a veto. It proposed a personal civil penalty for specified knowing and willful violations. A renewed accountability measure should address the veto’s objections, identify any gap in existing remedies, and provide a fair process for correcting a violation. Our municipal reviews will start with adopted text, amendment history, statutory exceptions, and evidence of enforcement.5

We are also developing a Residential Firearm Rights Protection Act focused on lawful possession inside rented homes. People who rent have the same interest in personal security as homeowners. The bill must say which lease terms it would affect and distinguish a dwelling from common areas and specialized housing. It should protect lawful possession without excusing threats, reckless discharge, or property damage. Actual lease clauses and written notices from affected residents will help us test the language before introduction.

Privacy work addresses several distinct problems. Merchant category codes, government-required dealer surveillance, and firearm-owner records involve different data and different actors. A merchant code does not identify every item on a receipt. The policy question is whether firearm-specific classification can be used to monitor lawful commerce or support government lists. Arizona already limits certain local firearm records and protects permit information. We need to identify the remaining gaps, define permissible investigations, and ensure a proposal regulates the information at issue.6

The Firearm Industry Public Contract Fairness Act is under development as a focused proposal about public purchasing. It would examine contract conditions that pressure vendors to adopt firearm policies unrelated to the service government is buying. The draft must preserve ordinary decisions about price, performance, and legal compliance. Separate banking and insurance questions need their own research. Public contracts offer a defined place to ask whether a condition serves the public purchase or imposes an unrelated policy demand.

Suppressor reform has already reached the governor’s desk. Senate Bill 1069 passed the Senate seventeen to ten and the House thirty-two to twenty-five in 2026, then was vetoed. It would have removed firearm muffling devices from Arizona’s prohibited-weapons definition. Current law also excludes specified federally compliant possession, manufacture, and transfer from that definition. Any 2027 proposal must explain the precise change in state law and its relationship to federal requirements.7

School emergency readiness and lawful self-defense remain part of the developing portfolio. A school bill needs settled answers about who participates, required training, response duties, funding, and liability. A civil-immunity proposal must begin with the law already on the books: Arizona says a person is not civilly liable for conduct justified under its defensive-force provisions. The remaining question is whether procedure or litigation costs keep that protection from working promptly. Repeating current law would accomplish little.8

These are developing proposals, not a list of introduced 2027 bills or a declaration that every item has received board approval and a committed sponsor. Some will require more evidence; others may be narrowed, combined, or addressed through existing remedies. We will report those decisions as they occur. Members can help now by preserving an actual local policy, lease clause, application record, or business requirement and explaining its effect. When a bill is introduced, read its current text before contacting your legislator. Arizona earned its first-place assessment through sustained attention. That same attention will determine whether our next proposals make the freedom it recognizes more usable in daily life.

Keep the powder dry and don’t forget to vote by November 3rd.

The change was enacted through House Bill 4168, Arizona’s 2026 tax omnibus. The law provides a full exemption for the primary residence of a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 100 percent or a status of total disability based on individual unemployability. It also provides full relief to qualifying surviving spouses of veterans who were, or would have been, eligible for that full exemption. A surviving spouse of a veteran eligible for a partial exemption may qualify for a partial exemption.2

Removing the income limit matters for veterans whose household income previously put them over the statutory threshold. The change does not eliminate every eligibility requirement. The exemption remains tied to a qualifying veteran or surviving spouse, a qualifying primary residence, and an application process administered through the county assessor. The law also provides that a surviving spouse moving to a new primary residence must file an exemption transfer form with the assessor in the new county within 60 days.3

Eligibility still requires action

For an initial claim, Arizona law requires an affidavit to the county assessor. The assessor may ask for additional proof of the facts stated in the affidavit. The ordinary statutory filing period runs from the first Monday in January through March 1. In 2027, that period begins January 4. A failure to file the required affidavit or evidence during the statutory period generally constitutes a waiver of the exemption for that year.4

That makes county instructions consequential. Applicants need to know which form applies, what proof of disability status the assessor will accept, how to establish ownership and primary-residence status, and how the county will handle an application that was submitted under the 2026 rules. For TDIU claimants, the statute expressly refers to evidence of total disability based on individual unemployability. Counties should explain whether they will accept a VA benefits-summary letter, a disability award letter, or other specified documentation.5

The transition also raises a practical question for veterans already receiving a partial exemption. The statute requires an affidavit when a claimant initially seeks an exemption, and assessors have authority to request additional proof. The law does not, in the cited provisions, establish a single statewide process telling every existing claimant whether a new application will be needed to obtain the expanded benefit. Each assessor should publish clear instructions before the filing window opens.6

Maricopa County has announced that income limits for the disabled-veteran and surviving-spouse exemption program will be removed in 2027. Its public materials also say 2027 applications will be available after January 1. That is a useful start, but veterans across Arizona need reliable instructions from their own county assessor. A uniform statewide deadline does not guarantee uniform application forms, evidence checklists, or public guidance.7

The county-level questions

Before applications open, assessors should answer several questions plainly. Will someone already receiving a partial exemption need to file again to claim the full benefit? What documentation will establish TDIU status? What records will a surviving spouse need to show that the deceased veteran was, or would have been, eligible? How will counties distinguish claims governed by 2026 requirements from claims for tax year 2027? And what acknowledgment will an applicant receive to confirm that the assessor received the filing?

The financial process does not stop with the assessor. Some homeowners pay property taxes through a mortgage escrow account. After an exemption is approved, the homeowner may need to provide the approval notice to the mortgage servicer and ask how the servicer will account for the lower tax obligation. Counties and state agencies can make that step easier by issuing clear notices that explain what was approved and when the change should appear in the tax records.

There are also questions for public officials. How many applicants were previously denied or excluded solely because of household income? How many are expected to become newly eligible? What will the exemption mean for county tax rolls and for overlapping taxing jurisdictions? Those figures would help the public understand the reach of the law and give assessors and lawmakers a basis for evaluating its effects.

The 2027 change expands eligibility. Making the benefit accessible depends on the steps that follow: accurate forms, consistent evidence requirements, trained staff, and timely public notice. The filing window begins January 4, leaving little time after the holidays for applicants to discover that their county uses a different process than the one they expected.

County assessors and the Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services should publish a coordinated 2027 checklist by December 1. Veterans and surviving spouses should identify their county assessor, review that county’s current instructions, and gather documentation before the filing window opens. The law has changed. The public should not have to guess how to claim the benefit.

…

Read more

Friday, October 23

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce will hold a field hearing titled “More Choices, Brighter Futures: Expanding Education Freedom.” The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time at Northampton Community College’s Fowler Family Southside Center, 511 East Third Street, Sixth Floor, Room 605, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015. The hearing is open to the public and will be livestreamed by the committee.

The hearing will give committee members an opportunity to examine education freedom and school choice in Pennsylvania. Readers following federal education policy should watch for the witnesses’ accounts of how families access educational options, what barriers they encounter, and how federal policy may affect those choices.

This is the only committee meeting currently listed for the week. Congressional schedules can change, so check the official hearing notice and livestream information before making plans.

The Compatibility Limit Is Clear, but the Pump Is Not

E15 is gasoline containing more than 10 percent and up to 15 percent ethanol. Federal approval is limited: EPA’s Clean Air Act waivers cover flexible-fuel vehicles and model-year 2001 and newer cars, light trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. EPA says E15 cannot be used in motorcycles, boats, snowmobiles, older light-duty vehicles, or gasoline-powered equipment such as lawnmowers and chainsaws. Federal regulations bar selling or introducing E15 for use in these non-approved vehicles and engines.1

That is a compatibility limit, not a claim that every accidental use will destroy an engine. Manufacturers specify the fuel their machines are designed to use. EPA identified potential elevated emissions, material-compatibility concerns, and overheating-related engine failure from E15 use in motorcycles and nonroad products, while noting that the frequency of problems could not be quantified. Small engines face the same mismatch, often after long periods of storage. Owners should follow the manual, which may set a limit below E10.2

Misfueling is foreseeable because riders use the same pumps as drivers. Federal rules require an E15 label that identifies the fuel, warns it may harm other engines, and limits it to model-year 2001 and newer vehicles. Shared hoses create another complication: the first fuel after switching from E15 can exceed 10 percent ethanol. A four-gallon E10 minimum is intended to dilute the residue. EPA says less than four gallons is allowed from a dedicated E10 pump, a distinction easy to miss at the pump.3

Summer Waivers Change Availability, Not Compatibility

The Clean Air Act limits gasoline volatility during the summer ozone season. E10 receives a one-pound-per-square-inch allowance in specified circumstances; E15 lacks the same permanent nationwide treatment. Summer E15 sales have therefore depended in part on temporary EPA emergency waivers. A waiver changes fuel conditions for its term, not which vehicles may use E15 or the labeling and misfueling controls.4

As of this article’s publication date, H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, has passed the House and been referred to the Senate. S. 593 is a companion proposal referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. These are pending bills, not enacted law. They would extend the E10 volatility waiver to E15, addressing the seasonal barrier to broader E15 sales. Neither proposal makes motorcycles E15-compatible.5

Arizona’s rules add a state layer. In 2023, the state authorized voluntary E15 sales in Cleaner Burning Gasoline areas, including the Phoenix-area program, subject to fuel-quality and labeling requirements. Arizona seasonal fuel standards can affect which blends suppliers distribute. EPA’s September 29, 2026 waiver temporarily relaxed Arizona and California volatility limits through October 27. It does not change motorcycle compatibility.6

More Fuel Choice Needs Better Consumer Information

The strongest case for expanding E15 deserves a fair hearing. Supporters argue that more permissible fuel blends can increase supply options, support domestic ethanol producers and farmers, and ease price pressure. EPA has used emergency waivers on the stated ground of fuel-supply concerns. Those are legitimate public objectives. But more choice at the wholesale or automobile level is not meaningful consumer choice if the rider cannot reliably identify a compatible nozzle or locate fuel at or below the motorcycle’s limit.

The people carrying the risk are riders, owners of lawn and garden equipment, small-engine businesses, and retailers who must prevent misfueling at the point of sale. A rider may have to spend time searching for a dedicated E10 pump, buy more fuel than the tank can hold from a shared hose, or choose premium fuel solely because it is the only clearly separate option. No federal or Arizona law generally requires every station to sell E10 or ethanol-free gasoline. EPA has previously declined to require stations to offer gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol or less. That makes clear notice and dependable availability information the practical gap to address, rather than treating E15 itself as the only issue.7

Three policy asks follow:

1. Federal consumer notice: Congress should preserve E15 pump warnings and require a plainly visible notice, before the customer selects a grade, that E15 is not approved for motorcycles or small gasoline engines. Any shared-hose four-gallon minimum should be stated directly beside the selection control, with clear identification of a dedicated E10 option where one is present.

2. Federal fuel-choice data: EPA and the Federal Trade Commission should publish a consumer-facing, station-level reporting standard or locator that identifies whether a site offers E10 from a dedicated hose, co-dispenses E10/E15, or offers no fuel at or below E10. If Congress makes summer E15 sales permanent, it should pair that change with the notice and access provisions riders need.

3. Arizona transparency: The Legislature should direct the Department of Agriculture to make E15 and E10 labeling compliance a focused inspection item and publish a simple directory or map of stations reporting E10 availability. Arizona should also require any E15 retailer using a shared hose to put the four-gallon condition where a rider sees it before dispensing.

Three Steps Riders Can Take Now

Citizens can take three immediate steps. First, check the owner’s manual and use only the ethanol percentage it allows; do not assume every motorcycle accepts E10. Second, report missing, damaged, or confusing E15 labels to the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s Weights and Measures Services Division, and include the station address and pump number. Third, ask state and federal lawmakers to support fuel-choice legislation that keeps the E15 warning intact and improves access to a clearly identified E10 pump. Motorcycle groups and small-engine retailers can document where a shared hose or lack of an E10 option creates a recurring problem. ABATE of Arizona will be submitting a legislative proposal in the 2027 session addressing this issue.

The right policy is not a fight over whether drivers may choose E15. It is a basic rule of informed choice: people should know what is in the nozzle, what equipment may use it, and where to find an approved alternative. Fuel policy was designed chiefly around cars. Legislators and regulators can still account for the rider at the pump.

EPIC Policy Group tracks policy where it reaches people in daily life. Copper Dome Update’s Motorcycle Monday covers the rules, decisions, and practical fixes that affect Arizona riders. Share this article with your riding group, and ask your representatives to support clear E15 warnings and reliable information about E10 availability.

Arizona’s recurring firearms-industry protection bill addresses a practical vulnerability: lawful businesses can be denied access to ordinary financial services because their work is politically controversial, even when the institution identifies no customer-specific credit, fraud, liquidity, or compliance risk. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s October 2026 report gives this concern new factual weight. Reviewing the nine largest national banks under its supervision, the OCC found that each had policies or practices from 2020 through September 2025 that could influence decisions to deny or limit services because of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activity. Firearms and ammunition businesses were among the sectors identified. The report does not establish that every bank discriminated, quantify the full extent of the practice, or show that every decision affecting a firearms business was improper. It does show that the concern behind Arizona’s annual bill is not imaginary or merely theoretical.1

The reason we request a legislator to file this bill every year is simple: Arizona has not yet enacted a clear, durable rule that protects lawful firearms businesses from being excluded from financial services solely because of their industry, while preserving a bank’s authority to act on genuine, individualized risk. The proposal returns because the underlying risk persists, prior versions have not become law, and the financial system remains essential infrastructure for businesses that sell, manufacture, distribute, insure, transport, and train in lawful firearms commerce. In fact, a few years ago in committee, the lobbyist for the banking industry admitted that they discriminate against firearms businesses but there is nothing that can be done to stop them. Well Hoss, just watch me!

A recurring bill is not an assertion that every bank is hostile to the firearms industry. My firm does its banking at a very pro-2A institution. This policy adjustment is an attempt to define a boundary: financial institutions may make ordinary risk decisions, but they should not use vague reputational standards or sector-wide exclusions to penalize lawful activity that the state permits and regulates. That is the policy question Arizona should address directly.

The new evidence changes the discussion

The Bearing Arms article (Thanks Tom for the article) reports on an OCC review released October 14, 2026. The underlying OCC material is more useful than the headline because it provides both the scope and the limits of the government’s findings. The agency examined the nine largest national banks by asset size that it supervises: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank. It reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints and received about 50,000 documents, totaling roughly 420,000 pages. Its time window ran from 2020 through September 2025. The OCC reported that all nine banks had policies or practices that could require, encourage, or otherwise influence denials or limits on services based on political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.2

The report identified two broad mechanisms. One was reputational-risk decision-making, where institutions considered whether a relationship could trigger negative publicity, advocacy campaigns, protests, customer reaction, or perceived damage to the bank’s brand. The other was industry-specific restrictions. These could range from a categorical bar on a line of business to escalated review or approval procedures that made service difficult to obtain. The report identified firearms and ammunition manufacturing or distribution alongside other lawful sectors, including energy, detention facilities, tobacco products, and digital assets.3

For firearms businesses, the OCC’s public summary says several banks restricted financing to manufacturers or retailers, including businesses selling firearms that banks characterized as assault-style or military-style weapons for civilian use. Some restrictions also reached accessories. In a separate example described by the Comptroller, a bank declined to help a firearms company with an initial public offering because the company’s rules for lawful sales did not meet the bank’s own standards. The OCC’s point was not that every bank must fund every firearms company. It was that decisions should be made using objective, risk-based criteria rather than a customer’s political associations or lawful industry status.4

That distinction matters. A lender may identify a borrower-specific problem: inadequate collateral, unreliable financial statements, excessive leverage, a history of fraud, sanctions exposure, unlawful sales, or a material failure to comply with law. A payment processor may decline a transaction because it presents a documented fraud or chargeback risk. A bank may withdraw when an institution-wide safety concern is real and supported by facts. Those are familiar business judgments. And that’s OK. A policy that says, in effect, “we will not finance any business in this lawful sector because it may produce bad headlines,” is a different kind of decision. It puts a political or reputational judgment ahead of the business’s own measurable risk.

The OCC’s report also has limits that should shape how we use it. It is a federal supervisory review of nine large national banks, not a census of all banks or payment firms. The report’s existence does not establish that an Arizona bank, credit union, community lender, or payment processor acted improperly. Its public findings do not give a single national count of firearms businesses that lost accounts or loans. They do not tell us how many affected firms relocated, failed, paid more for services, or found alternatives. The OCC itself has said that more work remains and that further changes to the federal supervisory framework are under consideration. The report is strong evidence that policies existed and affected decision-making; it is not a complete measure of harm.5

Why access to finance is not optional

It is tempting to treat a bank account as a convenience. For a working business, it is part of the ability to operate. A manufacturer needs payroll, supplier payments, insurance premiums, taxes, equipment loans, wire transfers, and a way to collect payment from customers. A retailer needs a merchant account, card settlement, inventory credit, commercial insurance, and reliable access to cash management. A range needs property financing, utilities, liability coverage, payroll services, and vendor contracts. A trade association needs to collect dues and pay for events, research, communications, and advocacy. Removing one part of that network can raise costs throughout the business.

A company can sometimes open an account elsewhere. That does not prove the denial was harmless. A move can interrupt payroll or a scheduled loan draw. A new payment provider may demand a reserve, charge higher fees, impose longer settlement delays, or block products the previous provider accepted. A borrower whose credit facility disappears may be unable to purchase inventory during a seasonal window. A supplier may require prepayment. Customers may see rejected transactions or delayed refunds. Owners spend time disclosing the same information repeatedly to institutions that may reach the same categorical conclusion. For a large company, these problems can be absorbed. For a small manufacturer, gun shop, gunsmith, ammunition seller, or training business, a short interruption can affect cash flow and jobs.

The consequences are not limited to the owner of the firm. Employees depend on payroll. Vendors depend on payment. Customers depend on lawful access to products and services. Local governments depend on a functioning tax base. Arizona’s firearms economy includes businesses that serve residents, visitors, law enforcement, military communities, hunters, competitive shooters, and people who exercise a constitutional right. When a bank’s unmeasured reputational concern becomes a condition of doing business, the impact extends beyond the institution and the customer relationship.

The practical problem is the opacity of financial decisions. A customer may receive notice that services are ending without a meaningful explanation of what standard was applied. The public may not know whether the reason was delinquency, suspicious activity, a change in the institution’s risk appetite, a regulator’s direction, a line-of-business prohibition, or a reaction to the customer’s lawful products. A bank may have legitimate reasons it cannot disclose in detail, including protections for suspicious activity reports or law-enforcement inquiries. But complete opacity also makes it hard to distinguish those legitimate cases from decisions driven by broad, subjective categories.

A policy response should not require the impossible. It should not force a lender to disclose protected information, ignore anti-money-laundering duties, accept a borrower it considers unsafe, or provide a service it does not offer to comparable customers. It should focus on the narrower situation: a customer is denied, restricted, or terminated because the institution treats participation in lawful firearms commerce as disqualifying in itself, or because it relies on undefined reputation risk untethered to objective, customer-specific facts. A carefully drafted rule can leave ordinary credit, fraud, and compliance judgment intact while requiring that sector-based decisions have a defensible basis.

What Arizona has tried and why another bill is filed

Arizona has considered several approaches. In 2021, House Bill 2827 sponsored by Frank Carroll, proposed prohibiting government entities and financial institutions from discriminating against firearm entities because they supported or engaged in lawful firearms commerce. The proposal covered manufacturers, retailers, suppliers, distributors, ranges, and trade associations, and it included civil remedies. In 2022, House Bill 2472 again sponsored by Frank Carroll, carried a related approach. It included an exception for a financial institution that refused or terminated service for a business reason or because of a regulator’s directive, while stating that a blanket policy against firearm businesses would not qualify as a business reason. Those proposals reflected an effort to balance access and risk management. Neither became the governing statute.6

In 2023, Senator Carroll’s bill, Senate Bill 1096 took a different route. It tied the protection to public procurement. A company seeking a qualifying state or local contract would certify that it did not discriminate against a firearm entity or trade association. The bill passed both chambers, with a final House vote of 31 to 29, then Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it. Her veto message described the measure as unnecessary and raised the concern that banks might leave Arizona’s market, limiting competition and increasing costs for local governments. Whether one agrees with that prediction or not, the veto meant the bill did not establish a statewide rule governing discriminatory financial-service decisions.7

In 2024, Senate Bill 1167, the Equality in Financial Services Act, took a broader approach. It would have prohibited certain large financial institutions and payment networks from using a “social credit score” to limit services, including based on lawful business activity involving firearms. It also proposed a customer right to request a written explanation after a refusal, restriction, or termination. The Senate passed the bill, but it was held in the House. Again, the state did not enact it. The bill had a wider scope than a firearms-only measure, which makes it useful as evidence of the policy debate but not a direct substitute for a focused protection aimed at the firearms industry.8

Arizona also considered and enacted no general state-level protection in 2025 that resolves this issue. Senate Bill 1094 addressed discrimination based on political affiliation and certain values-based or impact criteria, but the Governor vetoed it. The vetoed bill’s scope was broader and its terms were contested. In 2026, with Senate Bill 1058, Senator Rogers addressed merchant-category codes and firearm transaction privacy, not access to ordinary bank accounts or credit. It passed both chambers and was vetoed on the stated ground that merchant codes are tools law enforcement uses to identify possible trafficking patterns and that the bill could make it harder to investigate violent criminals. Whatever one thinks of that rationale, it reinforces the need to draft each proposal with precision. A merchant-code measure and a banking nondiscrimination measure address related but distinct parts of the financial infrastructure.9

This history explains the annual filing. Each session gives the Legislature another chance to examine the issue, respond to new information, and improve the statutory design. A bill that fails, stalls, or is vetoed does not remove the underlying need. It also does not mean every future bill should be identical. Refiling should be an opportunity to correct drafting weaknesses, incorporate legitimate objections, narrow overbreadth, and make the law easier to administer. If the proposal comes back year after year without adapting, repetition can look like ritual. If it is refined in response to evidence and objections, repetition is how an unresolved policy problem remains on the public agenda.

What the protection should mean, and what it should not mean

The central principle should be even-handed access under objective criteria. A financial institution should remain free to evaluate an applicant’s creditworthiness, repayment capacity, collateral, transaction volume, fraud exposure, sanctions risk, compliance history, operational practices, and legal obligations. It should be free to decline a particular service when it has a genuine business reason that it applies consistently. It should also be able to comply with a regulator’s directive or federal law. Those are not loopholes; they are essential safeguards for a workable statute.

The protection should apply when a financial institution imposes a sector-based rule because the customer is a lawful firearms manufacturer, dealer, distributor, range, or related entity, or when it denies or restricts service based on the products’ political controversy rather than a documented financial or legal risk. The rule should cover meaningful functions: deposit accounts, lending, credit, payment processing, insurance where appropriate, and other core financial services. If one part of the system is protected while another can impose the same exclusion, the statute may not solve the business problem. The Legislature should identify covered services with care and avoid vague terms that invite disputes over the law’s reach.

The statute should also require a clear evidentiary connection between a denial and a claimed risk. That does not have to mean a bank publishes its underwriting manual or reveals confidential investigative material. It could mean that the institution maintains records showing that its decision rests on neutral, preexisting criteria, and that it applies those criteria to comparable customers. Where disclosure is legally restricted, the law can preserve confidentiality while allowing a court or regulator to review the evidence under appropriate safeguards. The point is not to make private credit files public. It is to prevent a subjective label from functioning as an unreviewable substitute for a legitimate reason.

Definitions will determine whether the statute works. “Firearm entity” should cover the businesses that make, sell, distribute, repair, train with, or provide essential services for firearms and ammunition in lawful commerce. It should not inadvertently capture unrelated businesses because a customer happens to buy one firearm. “Discrimination” should distinguish an adverse decision based on entity status from a decision based on individualized risk, failure to meet ordinary requirements, or unlawful conduct. “Financial institution” should be broad enough to reach the actors that control the service at issue, while accounting for federal jurisdiction and avoiding accidental effects on small institutions that do not offer the relevant product.

The enforcement model requires the same discipline. A private right of action can give a harmed business a remedy when the state lacks resources to investigate every case. Attorney General enforcement can help address patterns affecting multiple customers. But a statute should set a reasonable limitations period, require evidence of actual or threatened discriminatory conduct, and avoid remedies that punish an institution for a good-faith decision made under a defensible compliance standard. Fee shifting may be appropriate for prevailing parties, but the bill should consider how it affects both meritorious and weak claims. Civil penalties should be proportionate and tied to proof. A court should be able to order an institution to stop a discriminatory policy without commanding it to extend a loan that fails ordinary underwriting.

The goal is not to guarantee every business access to every service at any price. No workable law can compel a lender to make a loan it believes will not be repaid. Nor should a statute prevent a payment company from responding to a documented cyberattack, fraud spike, or breach of contract. The goal is to stop lawful industry status from functioning as an automatic disqualification. That difference needs to appear in the text, the legislative record, and the public explanation of the bill.

Why the federal report strengthens the case for state action

Some may ask why Arizona needs a bill if federal regulators already are addressing reputational risk. The OCC has taken steps to remove reputation risk from its supervisory framework, and federal banking agencies have issued rules and guidance aimed at preventing supervisors from encouraging account closures based on political or social views or lawful but politically disfavored business activities. The OCC report also says the agency is considering further actions. These are meaningful federal developments, but they do not eliminate the state-level question.10

Federal supervision reaches certain banks and institutions, but the financial services market includes a variety of charter types, processors, networks, affiliates, insurers, and other service providers. A federal rule can change supervisory expectations without providing a specific remedy to an affected Arizona firearms business. Federal policy can also change with administrations, agency leadership, and judicial review. A state statute, if carefully written within the state’s authority, can provide a durable local standard and an avenue to challenge a clearly discriminatory policy. The question is not whether federal action is useful. It is whether Arizona should leave all protection to shifting federal enforcement priorities.

Arizona also has an interest in its own commercial environment. The state’s public policy permits firearms businesses to operate under state and federal law. If government protects lawful commerce from direct discrimination but leaves private actors free to exclude those same businesses categorically from payment and credit systems, the result can be a practical burden on the industry without any clear public decision that the burden is justified. Legislators can decide whether that outcome is acceptable. The OCC report gives them evidence to consider rather than relying only on anecdotes or assumptions.

The federal findings should be used carefully. It would be inaccurate to say the OCC found that all banks closed all firearms accounts, or that the report establishes a nationwide count of affected gun shops. It would also be inaccurate to say the OCC declared every industry restriction unlawful. The report examined whether policies may have required, encouraged, or influenced denial or restriction based on protected beliefs or lawful activity. The responsible claim is narrower and stronger: federal reviewers documented sector-specific policies affecting firearms businesses at some of the nation’s largest banks, including practices based on reputational concerns rather than individualized financial risk. That is enough to justify a state policy discussion without stretching the evidence.

Counterarguments deserve direct answers

Banks and their trade associations have raised serious concerns about laws that interfere with risk management. Financial institutions must comply with anti-money-laundering rules, sanctions, consumer-protection laws, safety-and-soundness standards, and contractual requirements. They also need discretion to decide which products and markets they can serve. A law that exposes banks to suit every time they deny an account could increase legal costs, discourage entry into Arizona, and result in higher prices or fewer choices. The veto of SB 1096 reflected one version of that concern. A credible bill should address these points on its face rather than dismissing them.

A narrow rule can protect the core of bank decision-making. It can expressly preserve denials based on a customer’s financial condition, actual compliance failures, credible fraud indicators, sanctions obligations, legal restrictions, or documented operational risk. It can preserve an institution’s ability to end a relationship for a traditional business reason specific to that customer. It can state that the law does not require a financial institution to provide a service it does not offer to similarly situated customers. It can limit liability to cases where the customer proves that industry status or political/reputational considerations materially drove the decision. These safeguards would answer the legitimate concern that banks should not become forced lenders.

The term “reputation risk” is especially important. A bank can experience real economic harm from litigation, fraud, regulatory action, or a sudden loss of customers. Those risks can be measured and should remain part of normal business analysis. But a generalized concern that some people may object to a lawful client can become a self-justifying category. The OCC’s concern was that policies lacked clear standards and objective, risk-based criteria. The legislative response should not forbid banks from protecting their reputations under every circumstance. It should prevent the label from concealing an industry-wide exclusion that has no measurable connection to a customer’s conduct or financial exposure.

There is a second concern on the other side: a bill can be written so broadly that it protects bad conduct under the banner of lawful firearms commerce. That would undermine the case for legislation. A firearms business should not obtain immunity for fraud, unsafe practices, unlawful sales, misrepresentation, or a failure to meet the same contractual standards as other customers. A bill should protect the lawful status of the business, not excuse conduct that would be disqualifying in any industry. The proposed standard should apply neutrally and should allow the institution to rely on specific evidence of wrongdoing.

A third concern is federal preemption. Banks and payments systems operate under overlapping state and federal statutes. Arizona cannot order a federally regulated institution to violate federal law or interfere with a federal regulator’s lawful directive. A bill should include a clear savings clause for federal law, federal agency directives, and genuine reporting or confidentiality obligations. This kind of drafting does not weaken the purpose. It helps keep the law focused on conduct Arizona can regulate and reduces avoidable litigation about the boundary of state authority.

A fourth issue is transparency. Customers need enough information to understand and contest a decision, but banks cannot always disclose whether a suspicious activity report has been filed or whether law enforcement has requested secrecy. A carefully drafted law should establish a process for a customer to request the reason for an action, allow the institution to identify a permitted legal or compliance basis without disclosing protected details, and permit confidential review by a court. If Arizona omits this nuance, a disclosure mandate could conflict with federal confidentiality rules. If the bill says nothing about reasons at all, a customer may have no practical way to test whether industry status was the real reason.

Questions legislators should ask before voting

A well-developed firearms protection bill should answer several operational questions. Which financial services are covered? Does it reach deposits and credit, or also card processing, insurance, merchant services, and payment networks? Which businesses are covered: manufacturers, dealers, ranges, training providers, repair shops, trade associations, or suppliers? What counts as a denial or restriction? Does the law reach delay, a higher reserve, a lower transaction cap, or extra documentary burdens imposed only on the firearms customer? What evidence is enough to show that sector status was a material factor? Which exceptions protect lawful risk-based decisions and federal compliance? Which public or private parties can enforce the rule, and what remedies are available?

The answers must be clear enough that a small business can use the law and a bank can comply with it. If the bill only bans “discrimination” without defining the term or explaining the risk-based exception, it may leave too much uncertainty. If the law demands identical treatment regardless of transaction risk, it can be attacked as an attempt to dictate credit decisions. If it covers only outright account closure, providers may be able to achieve the same result through delays, new fees, intrusive conditions, or refusal to renew a credit line. The Legislature should study the full customer experience and draft to the actual point of failure.

A bill should also provide a path for evidence to reach policymakers. Arizona could require an annual report of complaints and enforcement actions, with confidential information protected and small business identities withheld unless the businesses consent. The state could collect aggregate data from the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions or the Attorney General on complaints involving financial access and lawful business activity. It could invite testimony from firearms businesses, banks, community lenders, payment processors, and regulators. That record would help lawmakers understand whether a problem is concentrated in particular services, whether complaints reflect genuine business risk, and whether the statute is producing unintended consequences.

This process would help answer a basic question that public debate often skips: what happens after a business is rejected? Does the firm secure comparable services at comparable prices? Does it lose access to working capital? Does the denial trigger a chain of contract cancellations? How much time does a company spend seeking alternatives? Are small businesses affected more than large firms? Does a processor’s restriction stop a retailer from accepting common payment methods? The OCC report establishes that restrictive policies existed. Arizona should develop the state-specific evidence needed to measure the local effects and evaluate the law’s performance.

The annual bill is about governing the boundary

When we file a firearms protection bill, we are not asking the Legislature to choose a bank’s customers for it. We are asking legislators to decide whether lawful firearms commerce should be disqualified from essential financial services because it is controversial, even when the customer meets ordinary risk and compliance requirements. The answer should not depend on whether the issue is popular in a given year or whether the affected business has a large public-relations budget. It should rest on a clear principle and a workable standard.

The OCC report makes that debate more concrete. It identifies large banks, a defined review period, a substantial document record, industry-specific policies, and examples involving firearms manufacturers and retailers. The report does not settle every legal question, and it does not tell Arizona precisely how to draft its law. It does confirm the premise that policies based on reputation and political controversy can shape access to financial services. That premise is the reason to return to the issue every session.

Arizona’s legislative record also makes clear that the design matters. A direct industry nondiscrimination bill, a government contracting condition, a broad financial services bill, and a merchant-category-code restriction are not interchangeable. Each addresses a different mechanism. Arizona has considered several of them, and each has encountered a different objection: breadth, market participation, uncertainty, public safety, or the role of financial risk. Refiling should give lawmakers a chance to address those objections with evidence, clear definitions, and safeguards rather than pretending they do not exist.

The central test for any new version should be practical: could a lawful firearms business obtain the same financial service as a similarly situated business in another legal industry, under the same objective underwriting and compliance standards? If not, what specific risk justifies the difference? A bank should be able to answer that question with criteria it uses consistently. A business should have a fair way to challenge a decision that rests only on its lawful industry status. Arizona can protect both financial discretion and fair treatment by drawing that line with care.

That is why the bill returns each year. The financial system is indispensable to lawful commerce. The federal government has now documented policies at major banks that restricted services to firearms businesses based on broad industry and reputational considerations. Arizona has repeatedly debated protections but has not enacted a comprehensive rule that directly addresses this conduct. Until the Legislature adopts a balanced standard, each session presents another opportunity to close the gap.

A state that recognizes lawful firearms commerce should not require businesses to win a popularity contest before they can deposit revenue, process customer payments, insure a facility, or seek a loan. It should require ordinary financial criteria to be applied honestly and consistently. That is a modest proposition, but it has real consequences for businesses, workers, consumers, and the equal administration of law. The work of filing the bill each year is the work of asking Arizona to put that proposition into statute.

Yes. We will continue to file this.

EPIC Policy Group

We represent Arizona Citizens Defense League, Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the Arizona Firearms Industry Trade Association.

That is an illustrative scenario, not a reported case. It identifies the decision Arizona should confront: do we reach veterans when their housing first becomes unstable, or wait until they need an emergency placement?

For women veterans, prevention must account for the circumstances of the person and her household. A referral that ignores children, safety, transportation, or the reason income disappeared may leave the immediate problem unresolved. The goal should be to preserve safe housing when possible and arrange a safe move when remaining is untenable.

The numbers describe homelessness but not every housing risk

VA’s summary of HUD’s January 2024 count reported 3,329 women veterans experiencing homelessness nationwide, including 1,668 in unsheltered locations. The total fell about 16 percent from 2023. Those are national figures from a count on a single night, not Arizona figures or a count of every woman whose housing was unstable during the year.1

A woman staying temporarily with friends may face displacement without appearing in a street or shelter count. VA distinguishes such doubled-up arrangements from literal homelessness, while recognizing that some households may qualify for prevention assistance.2

The distinction matters for policy. Measuring shelter admissions and street homelessness does not, by itself, tell us whether a community is identifying threatened housing loss. Arizona should also examine who requests help before displacement and what happens after the referral.

Women veterans need services that fit their circumstances

VA identifies parenting responsibilities, trauma, employment barriers, and housing barriers among challenges that can place women veterans at risk. In fiscal year 2025, its Supportive Services for Veteran Families program served 14,264 women veterans, about 16 percent of the veterans it assisted. VA reports that both SSVF and HUD-VASH can support veterans’ households, including spouses and dependents.3

Those facts should shape how local programs operate. A housing plan for a mother must establish whether her children can remain with her, how she will reach work, and whether a move disrupts child care or school. A referral should verify those details before presenting a placement as an answer.

Women veterans are not a uniform population. Many are not parents. Some are older adults, some have disabilities, and some have support from family or friends. Services should ask what each veteran needs rather than assign needs based on sex or assume every housing problem has the same cause.

Recognizing military service should also be routine. Intake staff should ask women the same direct service-history questions they ask men. Outreach materials should make clear that women who served are eligible to ask about veteran services, including when they are uncertain about program eligibility.

Safety can determine whether housing is sustainable

VA reports an association between intimate partner violence and housing instability among women veterans. It identifies economic harm and difficulty accessing care among the effects of abuse and offers assistance through local intimate partner violence coordinators and Women Veterans Program Managers.4

For a woman facing violence, keeping the current address may be the wrong objective. A landlord agreement cannot resolve danger in the household. Prevention may require confidential relocation, legal assistance, and a housing arrangement that does not expose her location.

A provider should ask which methods of contact are safe. A voicemail, text, mailed letter, or call to another household member may create a problem when communications are monitored. Referrals should follow applicable privacy rules and the veteran’s informed choices about contact and disclosure.

Trauma should not become a reason to delay housing assistance. Services should offer privacy, explain what information is needed, and avoid making repeated descriptions of traumatic experiences the routine price of obtaining a referral.

Intervene before the household is displaced

The early signs deserve attention: an eviction notice, utility arrears, reduced work hours, a benefits interruption, the loss of child care, hospital discharge without a housing plan, or the end of a shared living arrangement.

These should prompt a conversation, not an automatic transfer of someone’s records. A useful screening question is: “Are you worried that you may lose your housing, or that staying there is unsafe?” The next question is whether the veteran wants help connecting with a housing provider.

SSVF already provides a federal route for eligible households. VA describes its prevention services as assistance for veterans in permanent housing at imminent risk of literal homelessness, generally within the next 30 days. Its approach combines case management, benefits connections, and housing assistance.5

Federal regulations authorize eligible assistance for rent, utilities, deposits, and moving costs, subject to program conditions and limits. That provides tools for preventing housing loss, but it does not guarantee that every overdue bill qualifies for payment.6

The policy task is to connect people with screening early enough to act. When a household does not qualify for a particular federal program, the referral should identify another available route rather than end with a rejection.

Arizona has starting points to build on

Phoenix VA participated in Veterans First Limited’s Women Veterans Unhoused Stand Up in January 2026, bringing VA services and community partners together for women experiencing or at risk of homelessness. That is a local example of outreach designed around women veterans.7

Arizona should extend that attention beyond occasional events. Hospitals, benefits offices, courts, employers, and veterans organizations can maintain referral contacts and offer assistance when housing concerns emerge. Rural communities need a way to complete screening without assuming a veteran can travel to Phoenix.

Phoenix VA’s Community Resource and Referral Center, at 1500 East Thomas Road, Suite 106, serves veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Its published information states that veterans may visit with or without an appointment and do not need a referral.8

The Women Veterans Call Center can help women navigate VA and connect with a local Women Veterans Program Manager. Women may call or text 855-829-6636. The center provides free, confidential assistance during its published operating hours.9

Fund the response and measure whether housing lasts

Arizona policymakers and funders should make three decisions explicit.

First, establish responsibility for referrals. Each participating organization should identify a person who can confirm that a housing provider received the referral and made contact, using the veteran’s consent and applicable privacy safeguards.

Second, support help that fits the actual barrier. That may mean rental assistance, relocation, legal help, transportation, or child care that allows a parent to keep working. Programs should verify which costs existing funding can cover, identify remaining gaps, and avoid duplicating payment for the same expense.

Third, measure outcomes beyond the number of referrals made. Track time to contact, access to suitable family housing, housing retention at six and twelve months, and returns to homelessness. Review results for women veterans without publishing information that could identify a person or reveal a confidential location.

These are proposed operating standards, not a claim that Arizona already requires them. Providers will need staff time and funding. A proposal should identify those costs and responsibilities rather than assume coordination happens without resources.

New housing can serve people who have already lost their homes. Prevention also requires attention to households still housed today. Both responsibilities belong in a veterans housing strategy.

For veterans organizations, the next step is practical: ask your local housing partners how they receive referrals for women veterans, whether they can accommodate children, and how they handle safety concerns. Confirm the answers before the next member asks for help.

A woman should not have to become visibly homeless before her housing needs receive attention. Arizona can act earlier, respect her decisions, and judge its response by whether she and her household have safe housing that lasts.

If you know a woman veteran at risk of losing a safe home, share this.

Semper Fi.

The available crash data do not support an easy yes. Phoenix has improved parts of its transportation network while motorcycle deaths and serious injuries have remained a persistent problem. A one-year decline in 2024 is welcome. It does not erase the longer trend, and it does not show that the City’s transportation investments caused the decline.

A plan that counts projects but not riders

Transportation 2050 is a 35-year city program funded in part by a voter-approved sales tax. The City’s recent progress report catalogs tangible work: extended light rail, bus-stop shade, traffic signals, left-turn arrows and hundreds of miles of bike lanes. Yet the public-facing progress measures do not give motorcyclists a distinct safety target. The City counts what it has built. It does not show whether those projects reduced motorcycle crashes, serious injuries or deaths.2

That gap matters because riders use the same streets and intersections that these projects reshape. A new signal or a better-maintained road can help a motorcyclist. A design that overlooks motorcycle visibility, signal detection, turning conflicts, pavement condition or work-zone hazards can leave the rider exposed to risks the project measures never capture. These are questions for project-level review, not assumptions that every new project creates danger.

The City has a separate Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan, approved in 2022. It sets an ultimate goal of zero traffic deaths by 2050 and includes crash tracking. That is the right kind of safety framework. But the City’s own motorcycle results are a reason to ask whether the framework is sufficiently rider-specific and whether its project choices are being tested against motorcycle outcomes.3

What the crash numbers say

Phoenix’s 2024 Road Safety Action Plan annual update compares five-year averages. It reports 34 fatal motorcycle crashes per year in the 2016-2020 baseline and 45 per year for 2019-2023, a 32 percent increase. Motorcycle crashes resulting in death or serious injury averaged 163 in the baseline and 165 in the later period, essentially unchanged. In the same comparison, motorcycles rose from 15 percent to 20 percent of all fatal crashes in Phoenix.4

Those figures need context. The comparison periods overlap, and a five-year average smooths out individual peaks and drops. It is not a controlled study of Transportation 2050. Still, the direction is difficult to dismiss: the City’s broader fatal-and-serious-injury measure for motorcyclists did not improve, while the fatal-crash average rose.

The City’s 2024 collision summary shows the recent year-to-year movement. Phoenix recorded 536 motorcycle crashes in 2020, 520 in 2021, 575 in 2022, 571 in 2023 and 515 in 2024. Fatal crashes were 33, 39, 41, 55 and 36, respectively. The 2024 numbers are a marked improvement over 2023. They are also higher than 2020: total crashes fell slightly, but fatal crashes rose from 33 to 36, and fatal-or-serious-injury crashes increased from 115 to 146. Phoenix cautions that the 2024 summary uses revised data-selection criteria and that post-pandemic behavior may affect trends, so these figures should be treated as a consistent series within this report, not assumed to match every older city analysis.5

The countywide picture reinforces the scale of the problem. In 2024, Maricopa County had 1,960 motorcycle crashes, including 123 fatal crashes and 123 motorcyclist deaths. Phoenix’s city report counted 515 motorcycle crashes and 36 fatal crashes. The city’s total is a substantial share of the county burden, though city and county figures are separate geographic counts and should not be added together.6

In 2025, Arizona recorded 194 motorcyclist deaths statewide, down 11 percent from 218 in 2024. That is encouraging statewide news, but it cannot answer whether Phoenix or Maricopa County improved in 2025. The local series cited here ends in 2024.7

The measure that is missing

Crash counts alone cannot tell us whether riding became safer or whether more people rode. Phoenix’s safety report notes that Arizona motorcycle registrations increased 33 percent from 2019. More registrations may mean greater exposure, but registrations are not miles traveled, and statewide growth cannot explain a Phoenix-specific trend by itself. The City should publish motorcycle crash and fatality rates alongside counts, using the best available local exposure measures and clearly stating their limits.8

The City should also report whether motorcycle risk changes near completed T2050 projects. For each major corridor or intersection project, it should identify whether motorcyclists were considered in the safety review, what conflicts the design sought to reduce, and whether crash outcomes changed after construction. That would let residents distinguish an improvement that looks good on a project map from one that measurably reduces harm.

A serious review should look at common rider risks: drivers turning across a motorcycle’s path, visibility at intersections, signal detection, excessive speed, surface defects, debris, drainage grates, pavement markings and construction zones. It should examine crash reports and rider input together. It should also check how protected bike lanes, medians and turn treatments affect motorcycle movement and sight lines. None of these features is automatically unsafe; each should be assessed in the roadway context where it is used.

Road design is only one part of motorcycle safety. Enforcement against impaired and dangerous driving, rider training, licensing, public education and fair crash investigations also matter. Infrastructure cannot prevent every collision. But a city spending public revenue and reshaping streets over decades should not treat rider safety as an afterthought or leave it outside the measures used to judge success.

Count motorcyclists before calling the plan a success

Phoenix has built transportation assets that residents can see. For motorcyclists, the safety scorecard is less reassuring: a 32 percent increase in the City’s average fatal motorcycle crashes from baseline, little change in combined fatal and serious-injury crashes, and a sharp but incomplete recovery from the 2023 peak in the latest city-year data. The evidence does not prove that T2050 caused the harm. It does show that broad progress claims cannot stand in for rider-specific results.

Phoenix should make motorcycle safety an explicit part of transportation planning. Set measurable rider-safety targets. Publish city crash data by severity and location each year. Include motorcycle visibility, signal detection, surface condition and turning conflicts in project reviews. Track outcomes after construction. Consult riders before designs are finalized, especially on corridors and intersections with repeated serious crashes.

A transportation system serves everyone who uses it. Phoenix should be able to show that its plans account for motorcyclists and that the investments are making their trips safer. Until the City measures that, it can report progress on construction and mobility. It cannot honestly claim that progress has reached the people on two wheels.

ATF’s October 9, 2026 guidance permits suppressor transfers without requiring prior NFA approval or registration under its nationwide enforcement policy. Dealers must still follow applicable Gun Control Act requirements, including Form 4473, background checks unless exempt, and transaction records. ATF will also continue accepting voluntary registration applications. The announcement changes federal enforcement; it does not repeal Arizona law.²

Arizona’s statutory language matters. A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(8)(a)(ii) includes suppressors within the definition of prohibited weapons. Subsection (B) excludes specified devices when they are:

“possessed, manufactured or transferred in compliance with federal law.”

Arizona does not expressly condition this exception on possessing a tax stamp or approved Form 4. That gives an unregistered owner a plausible argument that possession under the new federal policy qualifies. It does not establish that argument as settled Arizona law.¹

The competing interpretation is that declining to enforce a federal requirement is different from complying with it. An Arizona prosecutor could contend that the underlying registration provisions remain statutory requirements even though federal officials will not enforce them. An owner could respond that Arizona’s exception should recognize possession and transfers expressly permitted under the federal government’s current policy. Resolving those interpretations requires Arizona-specific legal analysis.

The court injunction and nationwide policy also provide different protection. Someone covered by the injunction can point to a judicial order restricting federal enforcement against that person. Someone outside its scope relies on the Department of Justice’s enforcement discretion. The practical federal transfer process may be identical, but the legal basis differs. Membership or customer coverage should be verified against the judgment rather than assumed from an organization’s announcement.2

ATF expressly leaves this state-law issue unresolved. Its FAQ says the agency cannot determine whether unregistered possession under the injunction or enforcement policy satisfies state requirements concerning lawful possession or registration. Federal law also continues to prohibit dealer transfers that violate applicable state law.3

My practical recommendation is to retain the voluntary Form 4 route while seeking Arizona clarification. An approved, registered transfer provides a more established basis for invoking Arizona’s federal-compliance exception. A completed Form 4473 or successful background check does not independently decide whether an unregistered suppressor satisfies that exception.

Existing owners should preserve their registration records. Prospective buyers should evaluate the Arizona consequences before withdrawing pending applications. Dealers considering Form 4473-only transfers should obtain a written Arizona legal assessment addressing both injunction beneficiaries and purchasers relying solely on nationwide discretion.

This also strengthens the case for revisiting Senator Wendy Rogers’s SB 1069. The bill would have removed suppressors from Arizona’s prohibited-weapon definition, avoiding this particular dispute over federal compliance. Governor Hobbs vetoed it on June 19, 2026, so that change never became law.4

The legislative question is straightforward: Should Arizona suppressor owners have to interpret changing federal enforcement policies to determine whether their possession meets state law? Removing suppressors from the prohibited-weapon definition would answer that question directly.

Follow and subscribe to the Copper Dome Update and check in for 2A Friday each week.

The dispute turns in part on how readers understand the numbers. The article says The Trace reported that Turner’s accounted for roughly one-fifth of California firearm sales and one-quarter of certain recovered firearms traced to dealers. The comparison covered firearms both sold and recovered during a specific period, while a separate raw count included firearms sold before that period. Those figures describe different things. Read together without careful explanation, they can leave readers with a stronger impression of dealer wrongdoing than the underlying data establishes.

California’s own Department of Justice report provides important context. For 2023 through 2025, California recorded 140,883 recovered firearms with unique serial numbers. Of those, 38,592, or 27.4%, were traceable to specific California dealer sales or transfers. The Department cautioned that a dealer’s raw count should be considered alongside its sales volume. A high count may reflect that a dealer sold more firearms, rather than a higher share of its sales later being associated with crime. The Department also stated that a later recovery does not, by itself, indicate dealer negligence or wrongdoing.2

ATF makes a similar point about its federal trace data. Traces help law enforcement investigate specific firearms, but ATF warns that they are not based on a random sample and should not be treated as representative of all firearms used by criminals. ATF also notes that not every firearm used in a crime is traced, and not every firearm that is traced was used in a crime.3

Trace data still has value as an investigative lead. A particular firearm’s path may help investigators identify a suspect, a trafficking channel, or other evidence. The limit is what the data alone can establish about a dealer. A trace does not show whether a sale complied with the law, what the dealer knew at the time, or what happened to the firearm after it left the store.

That distinction matters in Arizona. State law already limits political subdivisions from requiring or maintaining identifying information about people who own, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer firearms, with an exception for law-enforcement investigations. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3108(C)(2) (2026). The proposed 2027 Firearm Retail Privacy and Surveillance Act would build on that policy by setting clearer statewide limits on government-compelled collection of, and access to, customer-identifiable information held by firearm retailers.

The proposal would cover specified information such as transaction-level records linked to a customer, as well as audio, video, and biometric information. It would set rules for government access, use, retention, and disclosure. The working draft preserves voluntary store security, federally required dealer records and inspections, and lawful investigations. It allows access through specified legal process, voluntary consent, or a documented emergency. The proposal is still in development for 2027; it has no assigned bill number or sponsor, and the current substitute language has not been introduced or approved.

As drafted, the Act focuses on customer-identifiable retailer information and government conduct. It does not create a general ban on trace investigations or on discussion of firearm data. It also does not expressly regulate publication of aggregate statistics that identify a dealer but not an individual customer. That distinction will matter as the proposal is finalized.

When statistics are presented without their definitions, time periods, denominators, and limits, readers can mistake an investigative lead for proof of misconduct. When government collects or accesses sensitive information generated by lawful firearm commerce, clear rules should govern what it can obtain and how it can use that information.

This is the reason we are proposing the Firearm Retail Privacy and Surveillance Act for 2027: to protect customer privacy, set clear limits on government-directed surveillance and access to retailer data, and preserve lawful investigations and ordinary business security.

This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.