By Michael Infanzon

Written by Michael Infanzon

In two separate incidents reported from Florida and Nevada, we are witnessing the fallout of government and corporate actions rooted not in Constitutional principle or common sense, but in fear-based policy and ideologically driven overreach. One case involves a Fort Myers Florida tenant who was reportedly given a seven-day eviction notice after her roommate used a firearm to stop a potential armed intruder—an act being reviewed as lawful self-defense. The other is a political spectacle in Nevada, where legislators are rushing to impose stricter gun control laws in the wake of a tragedy, potentially curtailing constitutionally protected rights in favor of emotionally charged legislative responses.

Both incidents present stark contrasts to the prevailing culture and statutory framework in Arizona, a state where the legislative majority continues to prioritize and uphold the Constitution—especially the Second Amendment. Citizens of Arizona should take this moment to reflect on, and be grateful for, the steady hands in the legislature who recognize that self-defense is a natural right and that owning and bearing arms is not only legal but a fundamental guarantee.

The Fort Myers Eviction: Punished for Staying Alive

According to Fox 4 Now, a Fort Myers apartment complex issued an eviction notice to tenants after one of them used a firearm to stop what police describe as a potential intruder with a gun attempting to enter the wrong apartment. Local authorities acknowledged the possibility of self-defense, and no criminal charges were filed against the shooter. Despite this, the Carlton of Fort Myers issued a notice to vacate, citing a blanket lease clause that prohibits firearm discharge and any conduct that could “alarm others” or threaten their peaceful enjoyment of the property.

This situation reveals the troubling reality that, even when someone is lawfully defending themselves from a credible threat, housing providers—especially corporate-managed complexes—may impose their own consequences regardless of the legality or moral justifiability of the defensive action. The eviction notice did not distinguish between lawful and unlawful behavior; it treated self-defense the same as criminal violence.

Had this incident occurred in Arizona, the legal and political context would be substantially different. Arizona law, under A.R.S. § 13-405, states:

“A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another if such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force . . . and when and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect oneself. . .”

Arizona’s Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws provide expansive protections for individuals who use force—including deadly force—when defending themselves in their home or any location they are legally allowed to be. The law explicitly removes any duty to retreat, reinforcing the right of individuals to confront imminent threats without risk of civil or criminal penalty when justified.

For more information on self-defense laws see the Attorneys for Freedom website.

But the support doesn’t end at the statutes. Arizona’s legislature, unlike some others, has shown consistent unwillingness to erode these protections under political pressure. While property owners retain rights under lease agreements, a move to evict a tenant in Arizona under similar circumstances would very likely be met with legal challenges and potentially political backlash, especially given Arizona’s strong preemption laws and statutory civil protections for lawful use of force.

Nevada’s Legislative Push: Gun Control by Exploiting Tragedy

In Nevada, Assembly Bill 245 proposes to prohibit any individual under the age of 21 from purchasing or possessing a semiautomatic firearm. Under the bill, a violation would constitute a gross misdemeanor, exposing young adults—otherwise lawful citizens—to criminal penalties for engaging in conduct that is fully legal in most states and under federal law in certain contexts. The term “semiautomatic” encompasses a vast portion of the firearms market; industry data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) indicates that semiautomatic firearms represent approximately 60% to 65% of all firearms in circulation in the United States. This includes not only AR-style rifles but also the majority of commonly owned handguns, such as Glocks, Smith & Wesson M&P series, and SIG Sauer pistols, which are all semiautomatic by design. The broad scope of this restriction means that AB 245 would effectively deny a constitutional right to a significant segment of the adult population based solely on age, despite those individuals being eligible to vote, enlist in the military, and serve in law enforcement roles. Such categorical prohibitions conflict directly with recent jurisprudence recognizing the Second Amendment rights of individuals aged 18 to 20 and would be legally untenable under the framework laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and clarified in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Arizona legislators, in contrast, have consistently rejected attempts to carve out arbitrary restrictions on firearms based on mechanical design or age-based generalizations, understanding that rights do not begin at age 21.

These measures mirror a common legislative strategy seen in several blue-leaning states: use a distant tragedy as leverage to impose sweeping, pre-written restrictions. The justifications tend to be emotionally persuasive but lack analytical rigor or constitutional grounding. The true impact is a shift away from individual responsibility and lawful firearm ownership toward a regulatory regime that undermines the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This is not how things unfold in Arizona. With Republicans holding a majority in both chambers of the state legislature and with strong support from organizations like Arizona Citizens Defense League, the approach in Arizona remains rooted in protecting individual rights, not exploiting fear. Bills similar to Nevada’s AB 245, had they been introduced in the Arizona Legislature, would likely have been dead-on-arrival in committee or failed to pass the floor votes.

In fact, Arizona’s preemption statute, A.R.S. § 13-3108, explicitly blocks counties, municipalities, and political subdivisions from enacting their own firearm regulations that conflict with state law. This measure ensures that local or emotionally driven political whims do not become law at the expense of consistent constitutional rights.

Arizona: A State Where the Constitution Still Matters

Arizona’s political climate continues to support the right of individuals to own, carry, and use firearms for lawful purposes, including defense of life. More importantly, it recognizes that self-defense is not just a legal right, but a moral one. Citizens here are not left to wonder whether exercising that right will result in eviction or criminal charges. They know that the law, in most cases, will be on their side—so long as their actions are justified.

This is a direct reflection of legislative leadership. Arizona’s majority of constitutionalist legislators have blocked efforts to restrict access to firearms, reduce carry rights, or implement broad bans that sweep in lawful gun owners. These elected officials understand that policy built on anecdotes or emotionalism erodes the Constitution one tragedy at a time.

Where other states respond to violence by disarming the innocent, Arizona seeks to strengthen individual responsibility, firearms education, and legal protections. That is not a coincidence—it is a reflection of sustained civic engagement, organized lobbying from grassroots 2A advocates, and a healthy distrust of power that places faith in the Constitution over bureaucratic decree.

What Would Happen in Arizona?

Let’s hypothetically reframe both stories in Arizona:

1. Fort Myers Eviction Scenario in Arizona
   If a tenant lawfully shot an armed intruder, police would initiate a justifiable use-of-force investigation under A.R.S. § 13-405 or § 13-411 (home defense). If justified, no charges would be filed.
   • Eviction threats based on lawful self-defense could be challenged in court, especially if the lease did not explicitly prohibit lawful firearm use.
   • Arizona’s “right to bear arms” clause in the Constitution (Art. II, § 26) would add persuasive weight to any legal defense or media response against the eviction.
   • Legislative allies and advocacy groups like AzCDL would likely intervene or issue public statements condemning the apartment complex.
2. Nevada Gun Control Push in Arizona
   Similar bills (under-21 semiauto bans) would not likely gain traction.
   • Arizona’s House or Senate Judiciary Committees, chaired by Second Amendment-supporting legislators, would shred such bills in committee. Twenty-nine (29) anti-2A bills were introduced and stopped this session alone.
   • Any successful anti-gun legislative push would almost certainly be met with a legal challenge based on Article II, § 26, Arizona’s constitutional right to bear arms.
   • Pro-gun groups, including AzCDL, ASRPA, and GOA supporters in Arizona would launch immediate lobbying and media campaigns.
   • The governor’s office, unless held by an anti-2A executive like we do now, would likely veto any measure infringing on established firearms rights.

Stay Vigilant, Stay Engaged

Arizona remains one of the few states where Constitutional rights are still interpreted as fixed protections, not flexible guidelines. But this didn’t happen by chance. It took years of deliberate policymaking, constant legislative engagement, and principled leadership that resisted the trend of reactionary lawmaking.

Arizonans have much to be grateful for. When other states punish lawful self-defense or turn tragedy into political opportunity, Arizona affirms the rights of its citizens and reinforces public policy grounded in Constitutional restraint. This should serve as a reminder to remain vigilant—these rights are only as durable as the next election.

In the meantime, Arizona citizens can sleep a little better at night knowing that here, at least, the law is on their side when it matters most.

Support the organizations that fight to protect your freedom, and don’t forget to vote!

*****

Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

He is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, and chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms, among other policy issues.

You can follow Michael on X/Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at minfanzon@epicpolicygroup.com.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR