[Editor's note: We allow those who care to post their opinions on candidates to do so.  We may or may no agree with the opinion posted or the information contained therein and do not do fact checking on the information.  We exist to give a forum to these kinds of opinions.  If you wish to respond, keep it focused on the issue at hand, not on the messenger.]

Phil Lovas was appointed to a term in 2013, he wasn’t elected by the people to represent them. In my view, his history has not demonstrated dedication and loyalty.  He used taxpayer money to run two additional terms, and then in April, 2017, quits 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, he 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 violating 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.   HB2517, 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 in policy of those by the endorser?  Political greed maybe?

Then in 2016 with HB2446, (Signed by Governor Ducey) Phil Lovas and Steve Montenegro, again hand over control of your 2nd amendment rights to the Federal Government and the IRS, 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 because 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?  Was this a calculated political move?

Here we have in my opinion, a candidate that has no loyalty or commitment to the people he represents, instead choosing pay over purpose.


Randy Miller


Views: 381

Replies to This Discussion

Clean elections is legal.  It is also abused.  So long as it is legal, it will be used and abused by some. We know what dems do.  So let's get rid of Clean Elections even though it's not funded by taxpayers. I know, some will say it's the only way some can afford to run. I get it. but they count on candidates to run clean, never meet the thresh hold and still not get the money to run.  I know there are candidates today using every bit of their CE money to buy signatures. If you can't get your own signatures, you shouldn't run.  It's a sign you don't have the support!  But Lovas is the topic and he is NOT running clean.

Trust, but verify.  I used that to research Randy Miller’s claims about Phil Lovas.  I started with Miller’s comments about HB2103; what I discovered stopped me in my tracks.  But, before looking into HB2103, it’s important to establish context.  During Lovas’s tenure, there were several HB2103s, but only this HB2103 could be the one Miller identifies.  In his post, Miller wrote “Lovas demonstrated great confusion . . . by proposing two separate bills, one violating the constitutional boundaries of government in HB2103.”  That’s misleading.  There were nine sponsors and four co-sponsors; Lovas was third of the co-sponsors.  He supported the bill, but 12th of 13 is hardly proposing.  Contextually, Miller’s claim seems iffy, but what about the bill?

HB2103 amended the concealed-carry requirement a permit holder has to be twenty-one years of age or older by adding “or is at least nineteen years of age and provides evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces, United States armed forces reserve or a state national guard.”  That’s it!  Nothing nefarious.  Even if we stretch Miller’s claims to suggest the problem with HB2103 is it didn’t amend the existing statute to "remove continued recognition [of] federally strict constraints on firearm ownership and carry, we’d fail.  That couldn’t be in the bill, because it isn’t in the existing statute.  Also, we should recognize the statute sets Arizona's procedures for people to voluntarily get a concealed-carry permit, and since Arizona--long before HB2103--approved constitutional concealed carry, all of that statute is optional.  If Miller doesn't like the rules, he's able to ignore them.  That said, it’s important to identify the many supporters of HB2103. 

Here’s a partial list:

  • All Republican senators.
  • All but two Republican representatives.  Those two Republicans didn’t vote.
  • The president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL).
  • A representative of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association (ASRPA).
  • A representative of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Note:  The AzCDL, ASRPA, and NRA are steadfast supporters of the second amendment.  It’s inconceivable they’d support a bill that did what Miller claimed.

A simple conclusion is Miller’s wrong about HB2103.  It’s more likely Miller used a bill number and generalities hoping people would believe his false claims (read accusations) without checking their accuracy.  There are similar issues with Miller's claims about HB2446, but I'll leave it to others to conduct their own research into that bill.  As I wrote at the outset, trust, but verify.

With Corinne's contacts, he doesn't need to do the work to qualify for Clean Elections.  While I am opposed to the concept of Clean Elections, I am more concerned with money raised from Dirty Politicians and their friends.


You are correct about HB 2103.  I incorrectly referred to that Bill and was talking about 2446, where the last "amendment" to the Bill was referring to - 26 UNITED STATES CODE 23 SECTIONS 5801 THROUGH 5872.  ;his is the acknowledgement and granting authority to an unconstitutional organization; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and allowing the IRS to continue their taxation on the instate transfer of your firearm rights. George, please show me in the Constitution where the federal government has this authority, where the ATF is a delegated power, and where the IRS is a legal entity as they exist, knowing they are a criminal element and were so at the time of the proposal?

I don't understand what you're getting at by saying that Phil is down the line about 12 or 13 on signatures for submission of the Bill.  Are you saying that this somehow mitigates his responsibility?  Do you want to apply the same logic to a mob breaking into your house?  Say Phil was the 12 person to enter and violate your private property rights, do we excuse his behavior by saying "well, he was the 12th person to violate your rights, so his action wasn't so bad?   I don't think so.  His signing the bill for submission is saying, yes I agree with it and want everyone to know.  This bill being modified is fine, all I am saying is that the state has the authority to regulate firearms, no matter if they are automatic or not, 17 rounds or 10, 16 inches or 6.  It is up to the people to say, hey, no you don't Arizona, you are not going to infringe on our right. 

Referring to your comment that "if I don't like the rules...."  I am not really concerned with the rules on that topic you refer.  I am concerned with the lack of consideration given to our constitution and the boundaries and restrictions placed on the federal government by it.  I am concerned with the failure of our legislators to strip the state of the illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of power and take back control.  

Again, I am sorry for the confusion on the wrong bill reference.  I have been reading a lot of them lately, I am sure this is no excuse, so am not making any.  Phil Lovas is an opportunist, playing both sides of the fence with his wife supporting campaigning for John McCain and then using the income from that to purchase is family cars, food, etc.  Then he wants to brag about how he supports the president, and his mission while enjoying the oppositions rewards at home.  At some point we need to have a moral backbone and exercise them in our decisions.  As a voting citizen and a PC, I am voicing my concerns with Phil Lovas, Debbie Lesko and Steve Montenegro based on past performance.  Yes, Phil was a party to some good bills as well, they all were.  The problem is their is no consistency  and no constitutional understanding by most of our legislators.  It is the people that must get more involved in discussions like these and exchange ideas and issues.

I thank you all for the exchange and think this is a great blog site for us to do so.  We can't change things over night, but we must work to do so.

Our state legislator have a duty to the people under Article 2 of our state constitution: 

Political power; purpose of government
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
All these legislators violated this by not submitting the bill with the references to Federal government omitted. 
James Madison said:

"The State legislators will jealously and closely watch the operations of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponent to the federal government admit the State Legislators to be sure guardians of the people's liberty."

I get it you don't think Phil Lovas is a candidate you care to support--and I understand that. What I don't understand--and will definitely contest--is your method of misleading by obfuscating. In this post, as in your other posts, you cite a bill number, a few words from it, and then spin it in presenting your interpretation of something you don't like. As I noted in a prior post, HB2446 and HB2103 had many similarities in their tracks, even though I suggested others could dig into HB2446 to discover them. Since you have chosen to double-down on your claims, I now find it necessary to point out what you're again attempting to do. HB2446, as introduced, referred to federal legislation--specifically the National Firearms Act, which has been law since 1934. The issue shouldn't be whether the bill referred to a federal law that state law couldn't change even if Arizona's legislators wanted to do that; the issue should be for what purpose was that reference made. In the case of HB2446 is was to ensure firearms and other related items that were legal to possess at the federal level weren't made illegal to possess at the state level. Here, unlike your heavily abbreviated version, is the entire amended item:

"B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), 19 items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and transfer records of the United States treasury department or any firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United States treasury department POSSESSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, UNITED STATES CODE  SECTIONS 5801 THROUGH 5872, OR FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION TO MAKE OR TRANSFER A FIREARM UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT IS PENDING."

Then, as the bill made its way through the legislative process, and before it was passed and signed, the amending wording (upper-case portion above) was changed to "POSSESSED, MANUFACTURED OR TRANSFERRED IN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW."

You're not alone in opposing Hb2446, as evidenced by the two people who registered their opposition through the Arizona Legislature's Request to Speak tool. However, there are many, Many, MANY more supporters, including people representing the AzCDL and ASPRA--both organizations of strong supporters of the second amendment. To see the lists of those For and Against the bill, follow the link above, and then click on the tab for RTS Current Bill Positions. So, Mr. Miller, you're entitled to have and state your positions, even when you're out of step. That said, when I find you posting misleading claims in your attempt to influence others, I'll be there doing my best to get the truth out.

Well, so much for civil discourse!  It's comforting for me to know that Moriarty gave permission to Miller to have an opinion.

The bottom line for me is simple: his wife is connected to every McCain donor who have probably become Lovas donors.  I knew that long ago. Anyone in bed with McCain who worked so hard to make America into a globalist nation and also spent democrat money through his PAC to rid the party of conservative PCs with the help of Robert Graham is no friend of conservatives. Lovas' wife also worked for Graham when he was busy purging conservatives from the AZGOP.  If we want to save the republic we can't do it by electing McCain operatives.

Why do you think it matters when the act was passed?  I started to respond but thought better of it, seems like a waste of time. 

Thank you anyway.

I want to thank both George and Randy for their opposite but reasoned argument on Phil Lovas.  Civil discourse is how we get from point A to point B. Thanks to Randy for his cordial apology about the mix up in the bill numbers. it's easy to get behind the eight ball on those.

Despite George's position, I agree with Randy on Lovas. Yes, he was an ardent supporter of Trump so I am told but in seeing his signs when I go that direction, it tells me he is running on Trumps coat tails instead of issues.  I believe others who are more focused on issues would also support our President if elected.  My choice would be Richard Mack but Clair makes some good points, too.  Mack has more presence and that helps persuade people, through  a good argument, to his side, like it or not.  I believe that the reason Clair runs and loses is not because he is not well informed but that he doesn't have that presence. Trump has it and others and it helped them over the finish line. Just life.

Thank you, Jaspersgoat.

If we all agreed we liked the same candidate, we wouldn't have to have elections.  I think I could come out with some serious negatives on all who are running, including Mr. Van Steenwyk!  But I will leave that to others to decide to research.  What I know might never be revealed because it's not recorded on some website but is recorded on the hearts of some people's lives!  I will leave it at that.



My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson



New Books added for you.

The best in books to make every conservative start thinking in new ways about America and the world being controlled by the Obama Administrations AND Republicans and Democrats.  Some surprises are in store for those who look!




Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.








© 2019   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service