Arizona law question?

[PNW_Steve]

Hey Everyone,

I turned on the idiot box for my daily dose of take news and was greeted by someone saying that, in Arizona, an accidental discharge, in your own home, with no injuries or property damage can still see you charged with felony negligent discharge.

Does anyone have any knowledge of this?

True?
BS?

Thanks

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't know Arizona law but my first question would be, "if there is no injury or property damage, how would the government know there had been an accidental discharge" ?

[Petrol & Powder]

This is the closest code that I can find to this issue and even this one doesn't seem to apply:

https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03107.htm

So, I'm going to say, BS

[Larry Gibson]

Under Arizona State Law;

A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.

B. Notwithstanding the fact that the offense involves the discharge of a deadly weapon, unless a dangerous offense is alleged and proven pursuant to section 13-704, subsection L, section 13-604 applies to this offense.

Sentencing as per section 13-704, subsection L, ; Class 6 1.5 years 2.25 years 3 years

Sentencing per 13-604; 13-604. Class 6 felony; designation

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if a person is convicted of any class 6 felony not involving a dangerous offense and if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of the defendant, is of the opinion that it would be unduly harsh to sentence the defendant for a felony, the court may enter judgment of conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor and make disposition accordingly or may place the defendant on probation in accordance with chapter 9 of this title and refrain from designating the offense as a felony or misdemeanor until the probation is terminated. The offense shall be treated as a felony for all purposes until such time as the court may actually enter an order designating the offense a misdemeanor. This subsection does not apply to any person who stands convicted of a class 6 felony and who has previously been convicted of two or more felonies.

B. If a crime or public offense is punishable in the discretion of the court by a sentence as a class 6 felony or a class 1 misdemeanor, the offense shall be deemed a misdemeanor if the prosecuting attorney files any of the following:
1. An information in superior court designating the offense as a misdemeanor.
2. A complaint in justice court or municipal court designating the offense as a misdemeanor within the jurisdiction of the respective court.
3. A complaint, with the consent of the defendant, before or during the preliminary hearing amending the complaint to charge a misdemeanor.

Note under Arizona Law the offence must be "criminally negligent", the person who had an accidental discharge would have to be proven to have "fail(ed) to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" along with a "gross" deviation in the standard of care.

Arizona law, §13-105(D), defines criminal negligence "as committing an offense by failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk and the result of that risk also, that the risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of care toward someone else that a “reasonable” person would observe in the specific circumstance...."

While an over zealous prosecutor could pursue charges it wouldn't go very far as "an accidental discharge, in your own home, with no injuries or property damage" and only your statement [if you are foolish enough to give one] would be very difficult to prove and likely would be dismissed as not falling within the intent and meaning of the law.

[Petrol & Powder]

Larry, you copied and pasted the same code section I linked: 13-3107

BUT, I don't see anywhere in that code that makes shooting in a occupied building a criminal offense on its own.
Am I missing something?

In Virginia it has to be malicious or unlawful for the shooting in an occupied building to be a felony. Otherwise the most it could be is reckless use of a firearm, which is always a misdemeanor.

So while our "reckless use" sounds a lot like your "criminally negligent", I don't see how "criminally negligent" could rise to a felony if the only evidence is an accidental discharge. Even an overzealous prosecutor can't stretch that to a felony. Criminal statutes are strictly construed. If the law doesn't specifically prohibit the activity - the activity is lawful.

[Ozark mike]

Hmmm ive always knocked squirrels off the bird feeder while shooting through the window wonder what they would of thought of that:guntootsmiley:

[Larry Gibson]

Petrol & Powder

Larry, you copied and pasted the same code section I linked: 13-3107

BUT, I don't see anywhere in that code that makes shooting in a occupied building a criminal offense on its own.
Am I missing something?

If the building is within a city limits inside or outside the city limits inside a building or not discharging a firearm can be a criminal offense. There are exceptions.

Outside the city limits within 1/4 mile unless you own the building or have permission of the owner/occupants can also be a criminal offense.

The "8. More than one mile from any occupied structure as defined in section 13-3101." exception applies to those "cities" which have many square miles of unoccupied "public land" with in the city limits. There you must be 1 mile from the nearest "occupied" building. Here where I live there is a lot of casual shooting just 1 1/4+ mile from my house with the nearest house being on the edge of the city limits and the shooting occurring 1/4 +mile outside the city limit on BLM and State lands.

For either to be the class 6 felony criminal negligence must be proven.

"In Virginia it has to be malicious or unlawful for the shooting in an occupied building to be a felony. Otherwise the most it could be is reckless use of a firearm, which is always a misdemeanor."

The OPs question is in regard, specifically, to Arizona. What is or isn't in Virginia doesn't matter, or legally, is moot in Arizona.

"So while our "reckless use" sounds a lot like your "criminally negligent", I don't see how "criminally negligent" could rise to a felony if the only evidence is an accidental discharge. Even an overzealous prosecutor can't stretch that to a felony. Criminal statutes are strictly construed. If the law doesn't specifically prohibit the activity - the activity is lawful."

No disagreement which is why I put the Arizona definition in and what is required for an accidental discharge to be a felony here in Arizona....."fail(ed) to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" along with a "gross" deviation in the standard of care.

As to the OP want a "true" of "BS" answer.....there isn't one because like many things in the legal world...it depends. However, if we look at the "elements" of the case as presented by the OP; "an accidental discharge, in your own home, with no injuries or property damage" it could be a felony but more likely a misdemeanor if it occurred inside the city limits [discharging a firearm inside the city limits] if it is reported to the police. If not reported then no harm no foul.

While an accidental discharge may be "lawful" it is still not something we should endeavor to do......

[Petrol & Powder]

Larry, I'm not saying Virginia law applies in Arizona. I'm saying I don't see a specific prohibition in Arizona law that equates an accidental discharge to Arizona's crime of "criminally negligent".

I was using our law as an example of a code that specifically addresses a type of action (shooting in an occupied building) and ASKING if Arizona defined the same behavior somewhere in their law.

So let's try this again before this spirals out of control. Is there a specific place in Arizona law that states an accidental discharge in an occupied building is considered to be criminally negligent ?

I see an Arizona code that talks about city limits and shooting and I see reference to shooting within a certain distance of an occupied building, but I don't see a specific law that states an accidental shooting IN an occupied building is a crime.

Am I missing something?

[Larry Gibson]

"Am I missing something?"

Apparently. Arizona is a very gun friendly state. We frown on accidental discharges inside or outside of building but don't get wrapped around the axle if no one is injured. Shooting goes on all around town across state and federal lands all the time along with on ranges and on some exempted locations inside the city limits.

"So let's try this again before this spirals out of control. Is there a specific place in Arizona law that states an accidental discharge in an occupied building is considered to be criminally negligent ?"

No, there isn't anything specific to that other than, as I've mentioned twice before, it can be determined the person "fail(ed) to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" along with a "gross" deviation in the standard of care." That is the burden of proof required. Thus, unless that can be proven, there is no specific Arizona law making the accidental discharge automatically "criminally negligent". It is the circumstance of the event itself that will make it criminally negligent or not and then only if it is reported to the city police or the sheriff's office.

Our laws reinforce common sense and we prefer voluntary compliance to enforced compliance. I can sit in my hot tub on most weekend mornings, holidays [especially the day after Thanksgiving and Christmas] and listen to the friendly sound of gunfire. When the wind is right I can hear the shotgun and rifle matches 4 miles away at Sara Park Range Complex. Life is good here......

However, we do respect the inherent danger of intended or unintended (accidental) discharges which is why our Arizona law can be applied as a "criminally negligent" case, either as a felony or as a misdemeanor if necessary.

[Petrol & Powder]

We are also a firearm friendly state but the democrats are attacking that with great effort.

Our laws aren't that different. We do define Reckless Handling and Shooting in (or into) an occupied dwelling. Reckless handling is usually a misdemeanor and maliciously shooting in (or into) an occupied building is always a felony.

We do separate Reckless behavior (generally being an idiot with a gun) from Malicious behavior (being an idiot with a gun with intent to cause harm) which is why I questioned Arizona's definitions.

I understand that intentionally shooting in a city is a crime in Arizona and you explained that there are exceptions to that due to large undeveloped areas that may still be within city limits. I had a hard time getting my head around Arizona's definition of Criminally Negligent but you've helped me with that.

[Petrol & Powder]

Here is Virginia's Reckless Handling law (in part):
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

A1. Any person who handles any firearm in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life and causes the serious bodily injury of another person resulting in permanent and significant physical impairment is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

And here is the law on Shooting in an occupied building in part:
If any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the event of the death of any person, resulting from such malicious shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if the homicide is willful, deliberate and premeditated, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.

If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony; and, in the event of the death of any person resulting from such unlawful shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If any person willfully discharges a firearm within or shoots at any school building whether occupied or not, he is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

So that doesn't seem too far off of Arizona's view on those behaviors.

[WebMonkey]

it looks like the foundation for any violation is discharging a firearm within the city limits.

in theory, someone would be close enough to hear it and report it.

so negligent discharge isn't really the issue.
however the firearm came to be discharged, if it was inside the city limits, there are statutes to 'deal' with.

[bangerjim]

Just don't shoot your guns in town! PERIOD. Unless at an designated indoor range, like I always do.


banger

[Ozark mike]

If i shoot towards town im likely to hit the hill on the other side. People always unload there guns on the 4th of july in libby. I dont live in town but they did have a in town deer season last year.

[Petrol & Powder]

I guess by that Arizona law if you accidentally discharged a gun in house that was outside of a city, there would be no crime :bigsmyl2:

[Electrod47]

I think, and I lived in Arizona for 27 years away from large cities. Perhaps the original question around the unintended discharge with no harm or damage in ones private home could be prosecuted? Well, lets say your wife's having her friend over to show off the new baby.
Say, Jim Bob comes home,
and decides to clear his weapon and Uh Oh sends one over the baby's head unintentionally. Friend makes a fuss and somebody calls the law.....
and here come the Mohave County Sheriffs.

[Larry Gibson]

If you're referring to the discharge of the firearm inside the house it depends on the location. Outside of a city no harm no foul. inside the city a specific statute may apply which is covered in previous posts. In Mohave County while some cities and communities are served by the Sheriff's Department numerous cities also have their own police departments. The friend can make all the fuss he/she wants but the burden of proof regarding the enforcement of that statute inside a city limit still lies with finding "criminal negligence".

However, reckless endangerment could possibly apply.....

Endangerment is defined in A.R.S. § 13-1201. It states:

A person commits endangerment by recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury. (emphasis added).

RECKLESSLY
Reckless conduct occurs when a person exhibits extreme indifference to human life or the risk of serious injury. The prosecutor must show that you were aware of, and consciously disregarded an unjustifiable and substantial risk that the injury would occur. It must be a gross deviation from the standard of care.

If that, as mentioned, can be proven. The question in Electrod47 example is was Jim Bob "aware of, and consciously disregarded an unjustifiable and substantial risk". I think a very good defense can be made with "Jim Bob comes home, and decides to clear his weapon". Seems with that Jim Bob was attempting to reduce the risk.......

And given the fact if simply discharging a firearm inside a building or city limits were strictly enforced, given the number of LEO ADs while loading and unloading firearms, there would be a lot of prosecuted LEOs..... It's why you see a lot of bullet traps of one sort or another in police and sheriff stations because it does happen, even to the best of trained people, LEO or civilian.

[WRideout]

In PA, regulation and law regarding firearms is reserved to the Commonwealth. A game warden told me that even though some municipalities have enacted "no discharge" ordinances, they will not stand up in court because municipalities do not have the authority. The Mayor of Pittsburgh is trying to fight crime by regulating "assault weapons, high capacity magazines," etc. in the city limits. Good luck.

Wayne