Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Get Lifetime Access

Rules committee recommends SB1012 as constitutional but flags liability language

Arizona Senate Rules Committee · March 30, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Arizona Senate Rules Committee recommended that Senate Bill 1012 is constitutional and in proper form but the committee's rules attorney warned the bill's dram-shop/liability language may conflict with the Arizona Constitution's anti-aggregation clause and recommended removing a final immunity provision.

A Rules Committee member moved to recommend Senate Bill 1012 as constitutional and in proper form; the committee approved the recommendation after the rules attorney raised a constitutional concern.

The committee's rules attorney, Holder, told members SB1012 "removes certain restrictions on carrying concealed" and amends liquor-licensing language to limit liability for licensees when injury is caused by a concealed carry. Holder warned the new language could cut off ordinary negligence claims against liquor licensees and "flag[s] the anti aggregation clause of article 18, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution," recommending that the committee "remove[] that last portion of the bill that is otherwise in proper form."

That opinion framed the committee's discussion. After brief questions, the secretary called the roll and the committee reported a recommendation of SB1012 as constitutional and in proper form by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. Recorded votes included: Representative Carbone — Aye; Representative Contreras — Nay; Representative De Los Santos — Nay; Speaker Montenegro — Aye; Representative Willoughby — Aye; Vice Chairman McCartner — Aye; Chairman Hendricks — Aye (one member listed as absent).

The mover on the floor was the committee member who made the initial motion; no formal amendment was adopted in committee. The rules office offered a targeted drafting fix and said it was "happy to take questions." The committee advanced the measure to the next procedural step with the recommendation that members consider removing the problematic immunity language.