Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904 (2026)

Suspension of civil rights and occupational disabilities

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A conviction for a felony suspends the following civil rights of the person sentenced:

1. The right to vote.

2. The right to hold public office of trust or profit.

3. The right to serve as a juror.

4. During any period of imprisonment any other civil rights the suspension of which is reasonably necessary for the security of the institution in which the person sentenced is confined or for the reasonable protection of the public.

5. The right to possess a firearm.

B. Persons sentenced to imprisonment shall not thereby be rendered incompetent as witnesses on the trial of a criminal action or proceeding, or incapable of making and acknowledging a sale or conveyance of property.

C. A person sentenced to imprisonment is under the protection of the law, and any injury to his person, not authorized by law, is punishable in the same manner as if the person was not convicted and sentenced.

D. The conviction of a person for any offense shall not work forfeiture of any property, except if a forfeiture is expressly imposed by law. All forfeitures to the state, unless expressly imposed by law, are abolished.

E. A person shall not be disqualified from employment by this state or any of its agencies or political subdivisions solely because of a prior conviction for a felony or misdemeanor within or without this state. A person may be denied employment by this state or any of its agencies or political subdivisions by reason of the prior conviction for a felony or misdemeanor if the offense has a reasonable relationship to the functions of the employment sought.

F. Subsection E of this section is not applicable to any law enforcement or probation agency.

G. Any complaints concerning a violation of subsection E of this section shall be adjudicated in accordance with the procedures set forth in title 41, chapter 6 and title 12, chapter 7, article 6.

H. A person who is adjudicated delinquent under section 8-341 for a felony does not have the right to carry or possess a firearm.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State v. Nixon, 394 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Nixon, 394 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 26× “In 1994, the Arizona Legislature amended AR.S. § 13-904 to include suspension of a person’s right to possess a gun or firearm.”

Large v. Superior Court, 714 P.2d 399 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 12× “See A.R.S. § 13-904. The next questions we address are whether the state's interest outweighs this individual liberty interest and, if so, what process is due.”

State v. Griffin, 58 P.3d 516 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 32× “He was later convicted of weapons misconduct as a prohibited possessor after the 1994 amendments to A.R.S. §§ 13-904 and 13-3101 were enacted.”

State v. Prince, 250 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 3× “” Prince claims that § 13-105’s definition of “felony” as requiring custody in Arizona applies to §§ 13-904 and 21-201 because both statutes address the subject of juror disqualification based on felony convictions.”

Blum v. State, Dept. of Corr., 829 P.2d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “Such a forfeiture, they argue, would violate A.R.S. § 13-904(D), which forbids the state to work a forfeiture of a convicted person’s property unless expressly imposed by law.”

State v. Olvera, 952 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “Appellant contended that when he was convicted in 1992, A.R.S. § 13-904 did not then deprive him of his right to possess firearms.”

Smith v. MacDougall, 676 P.2d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “Appellees argue that, despite the clear language of § 12-502, imprisonment is a disability which tolls the statute of limitations only when it deprives *24 the individual of the legal capacity to sue.”

United Riggers Erectors v. Indus. Comm'n, 640 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “Moreover, A.R.S. § 13-904(D) provides in part that “[t]he conviction of a person for any offense shall not work forfeiture of any property, except if a forfeiture is expressly imposed by law.”

State v. Barnett, 101 P.3d 646 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Thus, applying § 13-904, Barnett’s civil right to possess a firearm had not yet been suspended when he was arrested on September 2.”

State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 13-904(A)(5). However, “[w]hen two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each,” True v.”

W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Indus. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 241 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Forfeiture As indicated from the quoted portion of the Industrial Commission’s findings and award, the administrative law judge concluded from a reading of the Bearden and United Riggers cases that the Commission would subject the claimant to an impermissible forfeiture,…”

Steve Benny v. Danny Pipes & Charles Payne, 799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 13-904(A)(2) (prisoner forfeits “right to hold public office of trust”), 13-904(A)(4) (prisoner forfeits “any other civil rights the suspension of which is reasonably necessary for the security of the institution.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A) — 13 cases

State v. Olvera, 952 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “Appellant contended that when he was convicted in 1992, A.R.S. § 13-904 did not then deprive him of his right to possess firearms.”

Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Comm. for Sustainable Ret. in Support of Initiative, 314 P.3d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

State v. Griffin, 58 P.3d 516 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “He was later convicted of weapons misconduct as a prohibited possessor after the 1994 amendments to A.R.S. §§ 13-904 and 13-3101 were enacted.”

Smith v. MacDougall, 676 P.2d 656 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “Appellees argue that, despite the clear language of § 12-502, imprisonment is a disability which tolls the statute of limitations only when it deprives *24 the individual of the legal capacity to sue.”

State v. Key, 626 P.2d 149 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A)(1) — 2 cases

Harvey v. Brewer, 605 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2010).

Harvey v. Brewer, 605 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2010).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A)(2) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A)(3) — 1 case

State v. Prince, 250 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. 2011). “” Prince claims that § 13-105’s definition of “felony” as requiring custody in Arizona applies to §§ 13-904 and 21-201 because both statutes address the subject of juror disqualification based on felony convictions.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A)(4) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A)(5) — 7 cases

State v. Nixon, 394 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “In 1994, the Arizona Legislature amended AR.S. § 13-904 to include suspension of a person’s right to possess a gun or firearm.”

State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “AR.S. § 13-904(A)(5). However, “[w]hen two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each,” True v.”

In Re Casey G., 224 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

State of Arizona v. Marcos Isaac Danner (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(A)(l) — 1 case

State v. Nixon, 394 P.3d 667 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “In 1994, the Arizona Legislature amended AR.S. § 13-904 to include suspension of a person’s right to possess a gun or firearm.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(D) — 4 cases

Blum v. State, Dept. of Corr., 829 P.2d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Such a forfeiture, they argue, would violate A.R.S. § 13-904(D), which forbids the state to work a forfeiture of a convicted person’s property unless expressly imposed by law.”

United Riggers Erectors v. Indus. Comm'n, 640 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “Moreover, A.R.S. § 13-904(D) provides in part that “[t]he conviction of a person for any offense shall not work forfeiture of any property, except if a forfeiture is expressly imposed by law.”

W.F. Dunn, Sr. & Son v. Indus. Comm'n, 773 P.2d 241 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “Forfeiture As indicated from the quoted portion of the Industrial Commission’s findings and award, the administrative law judge concluded from a reading of the Bearden and United Riggers cases that the Commission would subject the claimant to an impermissible forfeiture,…”

Aranda v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 989 P.2d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(D)(1978) — 1 case

Aranda v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 989 P.2d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(E) — 3 cases

Russell v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins., 974 P.2d 443 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).

State v. Key, 626 P.2d 149 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(F) — 1 case

In Re King, 136 P.3d 878 (Ariz. 2006).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-904(H) — 3 cases

In re the Appeal in Yuma Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-95-63, 902 P.2d 834 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).

In Re Casey G., 224 P.3d 1016 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

In Re Casey G. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.