If you thought the push for radical gun control couldn’t get any more absurd, think again. The Arizona Child Fatality Review Team (CFRT), an entity under the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), recently released an eyebrow-raising annual report on child deaths in 2023. One of their recommendations? To “remove all firearms in households with children.” Yes, you read that correctly. According to this government body, the best way to prevent so-called “gun violence” among Arizona’s children is to strip families of their Second Amendment rights.
This recommendation has sparked outrage from Republican lawmakers, who rightly see it as an attack on constitutional freedoms disguised as public safety. State Reps. Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss, chairman and vice chairman of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee, didn’t mince words in their response. They penned a scathing letter to Jennie Cunico, cabinet executive officer of ADHS, calling the proposal “insanely unconstitutional” and demanding that the CFRT amend its report.
From Tragedy to Tyranny: The CFRT’s Overreach
The CFRT’s suggestion comes wrapped in the language of concern for children, but its implications are chilling. The report claims that the presence of firearms in homes increases the risk of adolescent suicide, making the removal of all guns from households with children the “most effective” solution to prevent firearm-related deaths. This type of broad-brush approach doesn’t just overstep boundaries—it bulldozes them.
Let’s be clear: no one is arguing against reasonable safety measures to protect children. Locking up firearms, using gun safes, and educating kids about gun safety are all prudent steps. But advocating for the outright removal of firearms from homes with children? That’s not safety; that’s tyranny.
Rep. Nguyen summed it up perfectly: “Proposals to strip citizens of their firearms are not only unconstitutional but also lack common sense.” He pointed out the absurdity of the CFRT’s approach by contrasting it with the report’s more measured suggestions for other risks, like drowning prevention. Nobody is suggesting banning swimming pools from homes with children—why should firearms be any different?
Echoes of New Mexico’s Gun Control Fiasco
The CFRT’s recommendation isn’t just radical; it’s eerily reminiscent of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s ill-fated 2023 gun control order. Grisham’s attempt to ban the public carrying of firearms under the guise of a public health emergency was widely condemned as a blatant overreach. Even her fellow Democrats distanced themselves from the move, which was swiftly blocked in court.
Rep. Nguyen and Rep. Bliss drew this parallel in their letter to Cunico, reminding ADHS that Arizona will not follow New Mexico’s lead into unconstitutional territory. “This radical proposal is reminiscent of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s 2023 gun control order,” they wrote, “which attempted to prohibit the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense.”
A “Do-Something” Mentality Gone Wrong
The CFRT’s report exemplifies the “do-something” mentality that often drives bad policy. Faced with a complex and emotional issue like child fatalities, the team reached for an easy scapegoat: firearms. But as Nguyen and Bliss rightly pointed out, effective policies must protect constitutional rights, not trample them.
“We urge you to direct the CFRT to reconsider its unjustified attack on the Second Amendment and amend its report,” their letter stated. They also criticized the recommendation as irrational from a policy perspective, noting that it does nothing to address the root causes of adolescent suicide or other firearm-related incidents.
Protecting Families and Freedoms
Rep. Bliss highlighted an important point: education and safe practices are far more effective than extreme measures. “Our state should focus on education and safe practices, not on extreme measures that undermine individual liberties,” she said. This approach respects families’ rights while addressing safety concerns in a meaningful way.
Education programs, community outreach, and resources for mental health support are proven methods for reducing risks without infringing on constitutional freedoms. Arizona’s lawmakers understand this; the CFRT clearly does not.
The Bigger Picture
The CFRT’s recommendation isn’t just an isolated misstep. It’s part of a larger trend of using public health arguments to justify restrictions on individual rights. From pandemic lockdowns to gun control measures, we’ve seen how quickly government agencies can pivot from protecting public safety to eroding personal freedoms.
This is why vigilance is crucial. Radical proposals like the CFRT’s must be called out and stopped before they gain traction. Arizona families deserve policies that balance safety with liberty, not half-baked ideas that treat the Constitution like a suggestion.
Conclusion: Stand Firm for the Second Amendment
The CFRT’s report may have been well-intentioned, but its recommendation to remove firearms from homes with children is misguided and unconstitutional. Thankfully, Arizona’s Republican lawmakers are standing firm against this latest attempt to erode Second Amendment rights.
As Rep. Nguyen and Rep. Bliss continue to push back, Arizonans should remain vigilant and vocal in defending their freedoms. The stakes are too high to let bad policy go unchallenged. Protecting children and preserving constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive goals—and it’s time the CFRT learned that lesson.