KJZZ’s Friday NewsCap revisits some of the biggest stories of the week from Arizona and beyond.

Matt Benson of Veridus and Sam Richard with Consilium Consulting join The Show to talk calls for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ resignation after comments she made about masked ICE agents and “stand your ground” laws, how Gov. Katie Hobbs responded and more.

Conversation highlights

LAUREN GILGER: Let’s start with Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has found herself in some hot water this week after an interview with 12 News’ Brahm Resnik in which she talked about how as we’re all kind of anticipating an ICE crackdown here in Phoenix, our state’s gun culture could really make it more — I think “combustible” was the word she used.

She cited Arizona “stand your ground” laws. And now the whole thing has really blown up, with Republicans calling for her resignation, lots of law enforcement organizations speaking out against these comments. And now even Gov. Katie Hobbs saying she should retract the comments.

Sam, I’m going to let you go first on this one. A lot of Democrats are coming to Mayes’ defense here, but not the Democratic governor. Do you think she’s right?

SAM RICHARD: I think that the first thing that we should do is consider what’s happening in the frame of the moment, right? And it is an even-numbered year. It is an election year. So I think some of the immediate reaction from the Republican-led Legislature and the effort in the state Senate yesterday to force her resignation I think can be seen a little bit through those guidelines.

I do think that the governor is correct in saying that we’re at a moment now where we need strength of character to lead the day, and the temperature needs to be turned down across the board. All of that being said, I think that what Attorney General Mayes is doing is reflecting a lot of concern broadly from people across the spectrum. That all of the actions that happened so far and to date have happened not in states with concealed carry in there.

And a really kind of mix of history. We have people who have brought automatic weapons to protests here in Arizona in the recent past. So I think that there was an effort to kind of highlight that with the temperature high, we’re not a great place to have Minnesota-style ICE activity.

And I think that was something that was worth bringing up. I think that maybe in retrospect, maybe Attorney General Mayes would have done things a little bit differently. But I don’t think that anything that she brought up was factually incorrect.

GILGER: What’s your take here, Matt?

BENSON: Well, I think it’s it would have been possible for the attorney general to reference her concerns about ICE activities without sort of musing about that this may lead to law enforcement agents getting shot, which is what she did. And never mind the reaction of Republican legislators. If you want to consider that political, fine.

But the attorney general’s own law enforcement liaison resigned following her comments, reportedly in protest. And her comments drew condemnation from the Arizona Police Association and law enforcement groups across the board who were saying our officers, as well as the attorney general’s own agents at different times, they don’t always wear uniforms.

Sometimes they are plainclothes. Sometimes, depending on the circumstance, they are wearing a mask. And so for the attorney general, for the state’s top law enforcement to be kind of musing about this may lead to officers getting shot, it’s irresponsible. A and it’s surprising from an elected official as savvy as she is.

And you saw that. It was reflected in the governor, the Democratic governor herself, saying she needs to retract those comments.

GILGER: I want to ask about the, not the political context, but the national context around this as well, because as you’re referencing, we’re watching what’s happening in Minneapolis and shooting deaths by federal officers of U.S. citizens and kind of the outrage following that. One of those U.S. citizens was carrying a gun. That seems to have played a role in that.

In light of that, let’s talk about what you said about law enforcement, Matt, because lots of law and local law enforcement agencies across the state have been releasing statements this week saying if ICE does come to Phoenix, we will not escalate. We are not involved in immigration enforcement. We do not wear masks.

We identify ourselves and wear name tags, things like that. There seems to be an effort also on maybe a separate issue, to differentiate.

BENSON: Well, you’re seeing local law enforcement trying to make it clear that they’re not engaged in these activities that we’re seeing? I think first off, local law enforcement typically doesn’t have an immigration mission related to ICE. And especially in some of these communities, some local communities don’t want them involved in those activities.

So local law enforcement is just trying to make it clear we’re here to protect the public and maintain order. But that’s really it. That’s the extent of their involvement.

GILGER: Sam, what do you think about the broader context here?

RICHARD: I think that Arizona, in large part, has been at the forefront of a lot of these conversations for decades. I mean this is, in many respects, perhaps activity and a world and a reality that Russell Pearce and Joe Arpaio were working towards, in terms of the sense of fear that a national police force that can come in and scare immigrants away and work towards self-deportation or even violent, coming into restaurants and things like that in a violent way.

I think it’s important to note that the recent activity at the sports bars across the town, I think netted somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-35 arrests. So all of this big, huge noise, all of this activity, all of this aggression and it netted a relatively small number of infractions that, to Matt’s point, a local law enforcement agency could have conducted.

So I think a lot of this activity is deeply unnecessary nationally, but especially in the context of Arizona and our relationship with migration historically.

GILGER: Yeah, so you’re referencing kind of the era of SB 1070 there. Let me ask you about that, Matt. Do you think that sort of shadowed over all of this conversation in Arizona right now?

BENSON: I think that first off, SB 1070, I’m not sure how much people even remember that episode. I mean, that’s 2010. We’re talking 15-plus years ago at this point. What is striking to me is that during SB 1070, the nation had this like, just the reaction to that law, which basically said local law enforcement, if they have reasonable suspicion as part of a legal stop, can ask somebody about their immigration status.

And that caused just that enormous uproar. And just consider that in the light of what we see now, where ICE agents, basically people getting nabbed off the street in some circumstances in Minnesota and elsewhere. It’s remarkable to me.

GILGER: That’s interesting. So I want to ask about the, the, I guess the political question involving the Kris Mayes story, right. Calls for her resignation from Republican lawmakers. I think there was a resolution on this on the legislation floor. Any chance you think that’ll happen, Sam?

RICHARD: None at all. I don’t think that there’s any chance that Attorney General Mayes will resign. I think that what it did do — and I really do applaud the governor for taking the opportunity to work to turn the temperature down, because I think that is necessary. To Matt’s point, I think those comments, whether they were factually correct or not, likely shouldn’t have come from the top law enforcement official in the state.

But I think that we have a moment and we have an opportunity to really appeal to the better angels of our nature, both as a community and as a body of elected officials. And I think that that is something that I think the quick response across the political spectrum will hopefully yield in the coming days and weeks.

GILGER: What do you think, Matt? You think that’ll happen?

BENSON: No, probably not.

GILGER: Better angels in politics?

BENSON: It’s an election year, it’s immigration.

RICHARD: I’m optimistic on the Friday morning.

GILGER: How much does the, the election year part play into this, though, Matt?

BENSON: Well, I mean, there’s politics involved in everything. So that’s at the heart of this issue and every other issue that’s going to be dealt with through November.

GILGER: Yeah. OK, let me pivot a little bit to talk about an interesting thing I think that’s happening right now, which is related to this tangentially, which is that that in light of this shooting death in Minneapolis of Alex Pretti, who was armed at the time, there’s this conversation about guns at protest that is a little counterintuitive.

We’re seeing almost a reversal, as my colleague Wayne Schutsky reported today, with President Trump and some Republicans saying you should not bring a gun to a protest, state Democrats speaking out and sort of defending Second Amendment rights. What do you make of this, Matt?

BENSON: I mean, hypocrisy abounds. Lok, the fact of the matter is your rights come from God and the Constitution. They don’t come from people. And so I think in a state like Arizona, you have a right to carry, and you have that right whether you’re at a protest or not. You have that right to carry, and that doesn’t give you the right to interfere in lawful law enforcement activities, ICE or otherwise, but you have a right to carry.

GILGER: Sam, this does seem to be a reversal from the political conversation around what we saw like in 2020, when we had armed protesters from the right protesting election results or COVID mandates, things like that.

RICHARD: Yeah. I think that, outside of the, the immediate moment, I think that one of the things that has always driven American democracy is the opportunity to have difficult discussions around big topics. And the Second Amendment is one of the shortest in terms of the actual language on the page. And I think that that opens up a lot to that interpretation.

And I think it also opens up that amendment in particular, to a lot of zealous opposition and zealous support. So I think that you’re seeing people point out what they might see as hypocrisy, if you’re someone who has worked for and towards appropriate gun control and gun safety, to have a Republican president, a Republican Congress and a Republican executive agency essentially trample on the Second Amendment.

I think that was an exact quote from the National Rifle Association. I think that’s just something to point out in, in the hypocrisy of what’s happening right now around our deep and long history with the Second Amendment here in America.