The Not-So-Clear Cut Case of Arizona’s Firearm Laws

In an interesting twist of events, a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona seems to have unintentionally made a case for more stringent gun control. The individual in question is none other than Arizona state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, who recently introduced a controversial bill that gained much attention.

Unintentional Argument for Stricter Gun Control

The proposed law, titled the ‘Shall Not Be Infringed Act,’ aimed to repeal certain local laws that restrict ownership of specific firearms unless federal laws are adhered to. Weapons like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are highlighted in the proposed bill, pointing at the intimidating depth of federal law surrounding gun control.

Kolodin’s stance that the Second Amendment is inalienable was supposed to be upheld strongly by his proposed bill — it unexpectedly ended up supporting the opposite. This twist might seem surprising, but digging deeper uncovers some hidden complexities confirming why he might end up receiving thank-you notes from advocates seeking for revised firearm policies.

Federal Law Vs. Arizona’s Proposed Changes

The proposed act aimed to liberate Arizonians from federal regulations surrounding certain weapons, suggesting that if the federal government wishes to enforce these laws, they must do so without any support from Arizona’s law enforcement officers. However, let’s take a closer look at the critical subtleties buried within Kolodin’s proposition and the implications they could have brought if implemented.

Existing Federal Firearm Regulations and Arizona’s Second Amendment Advocates

As per federal law, it’s off-putting for any citizen to own firearms like machine guns unless they’ve gone through the rigorous process of registration, which could take up to a year to complete. However, Kolodin’s attempt to shine his Second Amendment advocacy light also led to further arguments that contradict the gun lobby’s popular discourse. This is the scary part, even for decades-long advocates, as they run up against well-ingrained beliefs about gun control.

Gun Senses and the ‘Slippery Slope’ Fallacy

Years of discourse led by the likes of the NRA created a widespread belief, arguing that any small restriction on gun ownership is the first step towards total weapon prohibition. However, Kolodin’s unintentional hiccup begs to differ, disproving one of the most used arguments against any form of gun control.

Federal Firearm Acts and the Fear of Total Confiscation

Looking back at history, we find numerous occasions where guns were regulated, but never fully confiscated. Legislation like the National Firearms Act of 1934, which limited machine gun availability, or the Gun Control Act of 1968, which expanded these restrictions, never resulted in a total firearms ban. Even the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 didn’t culminate in a disarming scenario.

The idea that sensible gun control measures would somehow open a gateway to full-scale confiscation is a disproven theory, riddled with tension. The truth to this lies in Arizona’s unresolved firearm dilemmas and Kolodin’s bill that has inadvertently provided ammunition to gun control advocates.

Kolodin’s Own Goal: Disproving the ‘Slippery Slope’

Sadly for Kolodin, his resolution unintentionally highlighted the subtle parts of gun control arguments that counter his stance. The ‘Shall Not Be Infringed Act’ was likely designed to appease certain fervent constituents, but it may have inadvertently revealed how gun control can have limits without sliding into full-scale confiscation.

Proposal’s Unlikely Propects and Unintended Consequences

For Kolodin’s proposition to come into force, it would need to win the favor of both the House and Senate before facing a public vote in 2026. The complexity of this task might be overwhelming for Kolodin, but then again, he is no stranger to navigating through such tricky parts of the legislative process.

Regardless of its fate, the bill has already served an unintended purpose by highlighting the nitty-gritty of the gun control debate. The legislation was poised to bolster Second Amendment rights but managed to be a case in point that contradicted a popular, yet arguable pro-gun narrative.

From Arizona and Beyond

From Arizona’s governmental chambers to the nation, the ‘Shall Not Be Infringed Act’ has added another dimension to firearms regulations discussions. In attempting to amplify the Second Amendment, Rep. Kolodin unknowingly pointed towards an aspect of gun control that many fail to acknowledge. It’s confusing bits like these that underline the super important need to take a closer look into the delicate balance between individual rights and public safety.

Originally Post From https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2025/02/07/2nd-amendment-arizona-bill-gun-control-machine-guns/78329260007/

Exploring the Second Amendment: A Different Perspective on Gun Control