Arizona committee advances bill to reimburse schools for medical and safety training; critics warn concealed‑carry provisions risk confidentiality and liability

Representative Bliss, sponsor of House Bill 2,076, told the House Education Committee the bill is about medical response, not security policy, and would create a fund at the Arizona Department of Education to reimburse eligible schools or staff for approved training, certification and school‑safety equipment if they choose to participate. “This bill is about medical response, not security policy,” Bliss said, adding that “no school is required to participate” and that the measure “recreates an option, not an obligation.”

Opposition witnesses pressed the committee on the bill’s confidentiality and immunity provisions. Jane Ahern of Herrera Arellano, speaking for Giffords, said the bill would provide taxpayer funding for a “fundamentally flawed and dangerous policy of allowing teachers and staff to be armed on campus” and noted confidentiality rules could bar disclosure of which staff carry firearms even to parents or law enforcement in certain circumstances. “The bill adds confidentiality provisions that would prohibit the disclosure of the identity of any teachers on campus who are in fact carrying weapons,” she said.

Maya Zuckerberg, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, described real incidents where firearms carried on campus were unintentionally accessed or discharged and said the bill “goes far beyond” narrow, existing exceptions such as ROTC. She argued that adding firearms to chaotic classroom settings introduces predictable risks and would further traumatize students who have already experienced gun violence.

Proponents, including Michael Infanson of the Arizona Citizens Defense League and Chris Knox, framed the bill as a reimbursement and training measure with an emphasis on medical preparedness and de‑escalation. Infanson said much of the program is medical training and de‑escalation and emphasized that districts would still have to notify law enforcement about authorized staff. “If somebody doesn't want to go through the firearm training, that's fine,” he said. “This is the opt‑in on the other portions of it.”

Committee members pressed proponents and opponents on specifics: who would be notified in an emergency, whether law enforcement would be able to distinguish an authorized carrier from an attacker, the scope of the immunity provision for staff who use firearms in crisis situations, and whether any state appropriation would be required. The sponsor and proponents said the bill requires no new state appropriation, and that federal grants, private donors or existing grant programs could be used for reimbursement.

After public testimony and member questions, the committee voted to give HB 2,076 a due‑pass recommendation. The committee recorded a tally of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 1 present. The committee’s recommendation advances the bill to the next stage of the legislative process.

What’s next: HB 2,076 now moves out of the House Education Committee with a due‑pass recommendation; if it continues to advance, lawmakers will need to resolve the confidentiality, liability and notification issues raised in testimony before the measure could become law.