State lawmakers call on Pima County to repeal new gun ordinance

Two state lawmakers are calling on Pima County to repeal its new firearm ordinance, saying it is unconstitutional.

The ordinance passed 4-to-1 on March 5 by the Board of Supervisors requires gun owners to report the theft or loss of a firearm or face a fine of up to $1,000. It takes effect 30 days from the vote.

Supervisors said at their meeting that the goal of the ordinance is to help law enforcement go after “straw buyers” of guns. That’s when people guy guns for people who cannot legally own them.

“On behalf of the countless law-abiding gunowners in Legislative District 17 who are adversely impacted by your action, I demand that you immediately repeal the Firearm Reporting Ordinance,” wrote Sen. Justine Wadsack, who represents Tucson’s east side. “It is clearly unconstitutional, needlessly invites costly litigation, and infringes upon protections guaranteed under state law.”

That state law Wadsack references, says a “political subdivision,” like the county, is prohibited from enacting their own gun restrictions stricter than those in the state.“

In a similar letter, Prescott Valley Republican Rep. Quang Nguyen on Wednesday cited an attempt by Tucson to pass a similar measure years ago that was determined by the state Attorney General’s office to conflict with state law.

Nguyen made note of District 4 Supervisor Steve Christy, the sole no-vote on the county’s ordinance, and his concerns of legal issues arising.

“It is extremely troubling that Supervisor Christy’s concerns and these substantial legal issues surrounding the Ordinance have not been addressed,” Nguyen wrote about Supervisor Steve Christy, the only supervisor to vote against the measure.

Christy told the Star on Thursday that he thinks the county “is headed for all kinds of legal entanglements.”

“This type of thing has been tried in various iterations in the past, and they’ve all failed, and this one is destined for failure as well,” Christy said. “It just doesn’t match the regulatory outlines and the judicial and legislative actions in the past regarding this type of activity.”

Supervisor Rex Scott, who spearheaded the ordinance and its eventual vote, said there’s no reason to reconsider the measure.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“I know that Senator Wadsack and her colleague call for us to repeal the ordinance. I absolutely reject their call to do that, and I am certain that my three colleagues who voted with me will feel the same way,” Scott said.

Scott says the county ordinance was designed to “not run afoul of state law.”

“It was also specifically designed in terms of how it will be utilized by the county attorney to not impact law-abiding citizens.... If you honestly have a weapon stolen, and you’re an innocent victim of crime, the county attorney is going to use their prosecutorial discretion to not go after people like that,” Scott said. “This is designed to go after straw purchasers who have been utilizing that that process to get guns in the hands of prohibited possessors.”

Board Chair Adelita Grijalva also said Wadsack’s interpretation of the ordinance is incorrect.

“It is not unconstitutional for us to try to do what we can to protect our community. We had our county attorney look over it and if, you know, (Wadsack and Nguyen) are interested in some other process, they have an avenue by which to report us to the attorney general,” Grijalva said. “But what we’re trying to do is make small incremental adjustments, where we can, legally, in order to keep our community safe.”

The Pima County Attorney’s office did not provide comment on behalf of county attorney Laura Conover, who suggested the fine for violating this ordinance be raised from $300 to a $1,000.

Sheriff Chris Nanos said while he applauds “any effort” to keep the county safe, he doesn’t know if “this ordinance really goes far.”

“Everybody here knows and understands, I think across the nation, it’s even partisan when you mention background checks. We should be doing background checks. We should not be allowed to sell weapons to people (when) we don’t know who they are or what they’re about,” Nanos said.

Nanos said he instead is looking to a rule change the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is considering that would include changes to private gun sales. Under current regulations, Nanos said, the state allows gun owners to sell firearms without a background check or identification from the buyer.

A change to federal regulations may have more of an impact than a county-centric ordinance, he said.