Today, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a Petition for Special Action alleging the City of Tucson’s gun destruction ordinance violates Arizona law. State law prohibits local governments from destroying firearms. However, the City of Tucson enacted an ordinance that requires police to destroy seized firearms.
The Tucson City Council voted unanimously today to fight Brnovich. Currently, the City is nearly bankrupt.
The Petition for Special Action asks the Arizona Supreme Court to determine if Tucson’s ordinance is a violation of state law. If so, the court shall set a time frame for Tucson to repeal the ordinance or direct State Treasurer Jeff DeWit to withhold Tucson state funding.
On October 12, 2016, Arizona State Representative Mark submitted a formal SB 1487 request for an investigation into the City of Tucson’s gun ordinance. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation and found that firearm regulation, including the regulation of the destruction of firearms, is a matter of statewide concern that involves the right to bear arms which is protected under State and Federal Constitutions. Additionally, the state has an interest in regulating firearms as a way to preserve public safety as well as an interest in regulating police departments conduct, including firearms disposal. The preservation of order, the protection of life and property, and the suppression of crime are primary functions of the state.
Related article – AZ AG: Tucson May Have Violated Law By Destroying Guns
Finchem, who acted on behalf of residents stated, “A few minutes ago I was informed of the City of Tucson’s Council vote of 7-0 to sue the State, and the Attorney General’s decision to file suit against the City for a violation of state law concerning the destruction of public property; namely legal firearms possessed by the City.”
“As I understand, the City is claiming that their charter city status supersedes state law. This is about local control, how it is defined and the checks and balances to prevent the accumulation of power in just one political subdivision,” continued Finchem. “A similar tension exists between the states and the federal government. Local control means many different things depending on who one talks to. Every political body surrenders some amount of local control when it accepts money from another, there are always conditions attached that are devises of policy execution.”
“The City made a choice based on a political agenda and what is unfortunate is that the City’s leadership will use taxpayer money to fight a legal battle that did not have to happen,” said Finchem. “What is truly ironic is that the constituents who came to me to ask for the Attorney General’s investigation are Tucson residents, not residents in my own town.”
“Definitions have consequences, and in this case local control as well as what the term means, is now under the microscope,” concluded Finchem.
SB 1487 recently passed by the state legislature requires the Attorney General to file a Petition for Special Action if an investigation finds a local government has enacted an ordinance that violates state law or the constitution.
“While I respect the autonomy of local governments, the City of Tucson’s mandatory gun destruction policy is at direct odds with state statute. Arizonans depend on the Attorney General to uphold and enforce the law,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “Our Supreme Court filing isn’t just about the Second Amendment, it’s about the rule of law.”
Read the Special Action filing here
In the Special Action filing the AG concluded, “The Ordinance, which requires TPD to destroy legal firearms, conflicts with state law. Furthermore, firearms regulation is a matter of statewide concern and the City must comply with A.R.S. §§ 12-945(B) and 13-3108(F). Petitioner therefore respectfully requests that this Court declare the Ordinance violates state law; set a time by which the City must repeal the Ordinance and otherwise resolve the violation; and retain jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings, if the City does not act, to direct the State Treasurer to withhold and redistribute certain stateshared monies from the City.”