House committee advances bill shortening minimum hunting distance after floor amendments

The Committee of the Whole on the Arizona House floor voted on April 10 to advance Senate Bill 10-53, a measure that changes rules about discharging firearms and archery equipment near dwellings, after lawmakers adopted two floor amendments that removed a presumption in the original text and narrowed the minimum distance for some discharges.

The bill as amended removes language that opponents said amounted to a presumption that hunters were guilty unless they could show consent, and changes the minimum discharge distance described in committee testimony from roughly one-quarter of a mile to one-eighth of a mile in some circumstances, according to floor remarks by Representative Marquez.

Why it matters: Supporters framed the changes as balancing hunting access and constitutional protections, while critics including members of the Game and Fish community warned the shorter distances could increase safety risks near homes. The debate drew sustained attention from members of both parties during the committee-of-the-whole consideration.

Most important facts - The committee reported that SB 10-53 "do pass" after the floor adopted the Collin amendment (which removed the constitutional presumption language) and the Marquez amendment (which altered how the bill treats discharge distances and consent). Representative Collin moved and explained her amendment as removing language that "makes gun owners guilty until proven innocent." Representative Marquez described her amendment as aligning parts of the bill with Game and Fish concerns and described reducing the prior 1/4-mile standard to an 1/8-mile standard for some provisions. - During floor debate opponents cited Game and Fish testimony logged in committee. Representative Marquez said Game and Fish were logged in opposition in committee and described safety concerns raised by the agency. - Members disputed the effective range of shotguns during debate: Representative Marquez said "the effective range of a 12 gauge shotgun is 300 yards" and that reducing the minimum to 220 yards would permit shots "well within the range that could strike a person or a building." Representative Marshall replied that a shotgun's effective range depends on ammunition and suggested 40–50 yards for many uses and about 300 feet for bird shot; Representative Austin offered a visual, saying the bill would reduce the minimum distance to about 660 feet — "just over a football field's length." Both positions were presented as arguments for safety or practicality, not empirical adjudication in the transcript.

What supporters said Representative Marquez, explaining her floor amendment, said it removed the presumption that a discharge near a dwelling was prohibited without consent, struck language about rebuttable presumptions of consent, and "addresses other concerns from Game and Fish." She urged members to "support common sense legislation to make it safer for people to hunt and make it safer for people that are in vicinity of those that are hunting." Representative Collin said her amendment fixed a constitutional problem by removing the presumption that would have made owners "guilty until proven innocent."

What opponents said Representative Gutierrez said SB 10-53 "makes it easier for people to hunt within proximity to people and communities" and called the bill "another example of a bad gun bill." He urged opposition, saying Arizona already has few restrictions and that the bill would make firearms "even more" permissive. Representative Austin gave the "football field" visual to emphasize safety concerns.

Outcome and next steps The Committee of the Whole adopted the Collin and Marquez floor amendments and returned a do-pass recommendation for SB 10-53 as amended. The clerk read that the committee recommended SB 10-53 "do pass"; the committee's recommendation was reported and adopted in the House proceedings recorded in the journal. The measure will proceed according to the House's assignment rules.

Context and background Committee testimony included formal opposition from Game and Fish, which was mentioned repeatedly on the floor. Members framed the debate around balancing hunting access, agency technical input, and safety for residents living near hunting areas.

Ending With both amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, SB 10-53 moved forward in the legislative process. Lawmakers on the floor urged colleagues to weigh public-safety testimony and constitutional concerns as the bill continues through the legislature.