House Passes Bill Allowing Peace Officers To Carry Firearms Into Federal Buildings

The House of Representatives passed legislation (HB 2114) on Wednesday sponsored by Representative Bob Thorpe (R-6) that would direct the Arizona Attorney General to urge the U.S. Attorney General to reverse the federal policy prohibiting sworn peace officers from carrying firearms into federal buildings.

Currently, sworn peace officers are only permitted to carry firearms into federal buildings on official duty.

“By forbidding law enforcement officers from carrying their firearms in federal buildings, our government is essentially saying that they cannot be trusted,” said Representative Thorpe.  These officers put their lives on the line every day when they go to work, and they deserve to have their firearms on them when entering federal buildings.”

All 35 House Republicans voted in favor of this bill and in support of our Arizona law enforcement officials, according to House Republicans. However, 24 House Democrats voted against the bill, seeking to continue the federal policy of denying our sworn officers the right to remain armed, which is crucial for performing their sworn duty to defend the general public and themselves.


  1. The article is some what incorrect. Even on duty Sworn officers are not allowed to carry a firearm into a federal building. Federal agents are not allowed to have a firearm or even a pocket knife inside a federal building. Those individuals must use lock boxes located in the lobby before they are allowed to proceed further into the building. Stupid policy.

  2. Ariz. AG is being “urged” to have the phed AG change the law. C’mon ADI- ya need to edit yer headlines.

  3. please take note of the following from our Attorney General. then note the constables have taken their job as an elected official as to believing they have had a psychological exam, and extensive training in an “Academy” and sponsored by a law-enforcement agency. constables as a whole are not an “agency”. IF RECORDS WERE TO BE CHECKED IN THE CESTB (constables Ethics standards and training board) you would see there is and has been complaints of “off duty work” by a constable and he was reprimanded but not charged with impersonation of a peace officer while wearing a constable uniform and using county resources (vehicle, Taser, uniform etc..). the DPS sent him a letter of “cease and desist” stating he was not to work as a peace officer or security guard and referenced the statute 22-131 as well. The opinion of the Arizona Attorney General is very clear as to the “limited” function of the constable “only during the course of his duties”.

    The 2008 statutory changes to §§ 22-131 and 41-1823(B) explicitly granted constables the authority of a peace officer, during the performance of official duties, without the need for AZ POST certification. These statutory changes rendered Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I95-009 not applicable with respect to its primary conclusion. But the statutory basis for Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I84-167 (concluding that constables are not primarily law-enforcement officers) has not changed, and that opinion need not be discarded to answer the questions posed here. Because the official duties of a constable are limited to on-duty work, off-duty constables, even if certified by AZ POST, only have the right to carry a firearm where doing so is otherwise prohibited by law in situations when an obvious and immediate threat presents itself. An AZ POST certified, on-duty constable, however, has the right to carry a firearm in times and at places otherwise prohibited by law, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-1113.

Comments are closed.