By Randy Miller -- the sixth, in his series of thoughtful articles covering ALL candidates running to replace Trent Franks in the House of Representatives. (See earlier blogs for other Miller posts)
In the AZ Legislature, Lovas Proposed Two Bills-- One Against the 2nd Amendment, One For it...Huh?
Phil Lovas History: He was appointed to a term in 2013, not elected by the people to represent them. In my view, his history has not demonstrated dedication and loyalty.
Phil Lovas used taxpayer money to run two additional terms and then quit on his commitment to the people during his second elected term to take a job with the federal government that paid more. Shortly after accepting this, he quits to work on Trump Campaign for Arizona. Was this a calculated political move?
While a legislator, Lovas put forth bills and resolutions to increase requirements for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%; change Arizona to Day Light Savings time, and mandate Arizona tax payers fund “emergency” responses that affect military operations to local bases. (This is federal jurisdiction, not ours) I honestly don’t understand this logic as do others since they were held in committee.
Mr. Lovas demonstrated great confusion in his second term by proposing two separate bills, one contradicting the constitutional boundaries of government in HB2103. This bill gave continued recognition to federally strict constraints on firearm ownership and carry, and was signed by Governor Ducey. HB 2517, an excellent bill, acknowledged 2nd amendment rights and government limitations on registration and permitting. HB2517 was vetoed by Governor Brewer, who endorsed Debbie Lesko. Does accepting an endorsement show agreement of those by the endorser? Political greed maybe?
Then in 2016 with HB2446, (Signed by Governor Ducey) Arizona, with Phil Lovas and Steve Montenegro, again hand over control to the Federal Government and the IRS, of your 2nd amendment rights by conceding to the dictates of the National Firearms Act. This is yet another demonstration that these people aren’t constitutionally aware and pose a danger to your freedoms and liberties. I am beating a drum that needs to be heard; Washington is out of control and needs knowledgeable, strong, committed people that understand the risks we face in today’s political arena.
Phil Lovas is running a campaign on the coat tails of President Trump. He hasn’t been endorsed, yet litters our streets with images of him standing next to the president. He brags about being the first supporter of the Trump Candidacy and his ads duplicate his rhetoric. Where is the originality? How does this override his acts as legislator and qualify him to be a Congressman? Here we are in my opinion only, having a candidate that has no loyalty or commitment to the people he represents, instead choosing pay over purpose. I can’t explain his position on the bills and resolutions mentioned above, you’ll have to ask him.
Randy Miller PC LD21
There is More to this Story
Phil Lovas replied to Randy almost immediately after the Briefs posted his comments. Randy was not satisfied with Lovas's explanations. He penned his own reply as a second article on Phil Lovas's candidacy. See below:
I apologize if I was incorrect on your use of public money for your campaigns, my mistake. Good for you, and thank you.
However, you did quit after running a campaign for the people of your district to accept a federal position with more pay. You did quit that job shortly after making a commitment to work for them supporting small businesses. I only question what your true intentions are and where your true commitment is. I also understand from a couple of other sources, that your family is involved with "Bundling Activities" for John McCain, even though he has been very critical of the president and not popular with republicans. This is contradictory to your "commitment" to the president and our party. But it pays well I assume.
Your "A" rating with the NRA obviously missed the contradiction in bills you supported as previously mentioned. What part of ".... the right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed" is troubling you? Including language in a bill (HB2103) that gives control over to the federal government to tax and regulate every aspect of our "Right" is not a worthy recipient of this award in my opinion.
The confusion comes from your sponsorship of a good bill (HB2517) that is just the opposite. What was your motivation and confusion? Either you support the Bill of Rights, or you don't. Then there are the other issues I mentioned. Did you get support for these or just do them on your own? No one I talked to like these other bills or were aware they were being brought before the house.
I am not attacking you as a person at all. I am pointing out what myself and some others don't approve of as a legislator, contradiction of presidential support, and giving away of OUR rights under the second amendment. Show us where the authority is under the constitution to do this.