Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / courts / Supreme Court rules state has say on gun laws, not cities

Supreme Court rules state has say on gun laws, not cities

Declaring lawmakers have the final say, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that cities, towns and counties have no right to enact their own gun regulations.

In a unanimous conclusion, the justices voided a 2005 Tucson ordinance that says when the police department obtains a gun through seizure or surrender, the agency “shall dispose of such firearm by destroying the firearm.” The justices said it is clear in their minds that it is trumped by multiple existing state laws to the contrary.

Thursday’s decision has implications beyond Tucson and the question of firearm regulations.

It upholds the legality of SB 1487, a 2016 law that allows individual lawmakers to direct the Attorney General’s Office to investigate claims that a local law runs afoul of state statutes. That triggers an automatic investigation that can lead to a city losing half of its state shared revenues.

Potentially more significant for the state’s 19 charter cities, the justices said their constitutional right to enact their own laws is not absolute and that the Arizona Legislature in many cases gets the last word.



Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who sued Tucson, called the ruling “a monumental victory for the state of Arizona.”

“Whether you like it or not, it’s a huge victory for the rule of law,” he said. The bottom line, said Brnovich, is that the high court has made it clear that, with only narrow exceptions, if there is a conflict between state law and local ordinances, the local law has to fall.

The 2005 Tucson ordinance came under scrutiny after Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, who used SB 1487 to complain.

Brnovich ultimately concluded the Tucson measure violates a 2000 law which explicitly prohibits local government from enacting any ordinances dealing with acquisition, licensing, registration or use of firearms. And if those statutes were not clear enough, he cited a pair of 2013 laws that bar law enforcement agencies from destroying operable seized weapons and direct that they instead be sold.

Tucson agreed to stop enforcing the ordinance but refused to rescind it. Brnovich then sued.

He contends that issues of gun regulation are a matter of statewide concern. And he argues there is no right of cities to get state aid, especially if they are flouting state statutes.

Rick Rollman, Tucson’s lead attorney, said SB 1487 amounts to illegal coercion.

He said the threat in that law of a city losing half of its state revenue sharing based on Brnovich’s conclusion of illegality forces local officials to abandon measures they adopt that they believe are in the community’s best interests. That loss for Tucson would be $55 million.

Rollman also said it’s unconstitutional to give Brnovich that kind of authority to order state aid withheld.

And he argued that Tucson and 18 other communities are charter cities with a constitutional right to set their own policies on matters of strictly local concern, He said that includes the disposal of seized weapons, no matter what the legislature says.

Supreme Court Justice Pelander receives solid support of voters

Arizona Supreme Court Justice John Pelander (Photo by Bill Coates)

But Justice John Pelander, writing for the high court, rejected those contentions.

“The Legislature’s apparent objective in SB 1487 was not to usurp executive or judicial authority but rather to require and incentivize political subdivisions to comply with state law,” he wrote. “Likewise, the practical consequence of SB 1487 is to encourage compliance with state law, not to coerce, control, or interfere with executive powers or prerogatives.”

Anyway, Pelander said, it’s not like the law gives Brnovich unilateral and unquestioned power to decide for himself which local laws are legal and which are not. The justice pointed out that question is ultimately decided by the courts.

That still leaves the question of how far charter cities can go in deciding what laws work best for their own residents.

Pelander acknowledged the Arizona Constitution does give city voters the power to enact their own charters and enact their own laws.

And in prior decisions, the Supreme Court has voided efforts by the Legislature to tell charter cities when they have to hold elections and how they must choose council members. The justices also have said charter cities are free to decide how to dispose of real property.

But Pelander said the constitution says city charters “shall be consistent with and subject to the state constitution and not in conflict with … general law of the state not relating to cities.” And he said any argument that cities have authority to decide of how to dispose of weapons falls under the plain language of state laws.

“In no uncertain terms, the Arizona Legislature has declared that ‘firearms regulation is of statewide concern’ and has expressed its intent to preempt ‘firearms regulations in this state’ and thereby ‘limit the ability of any political subdivision of this state to regulate firearms,’ ” he wrote.

Brnovich said that ends the discussion.

“What the state Supreme Court is basically saying is that if there’s a conflict with state law, unless it falls within one of those two narrow areas, state law will prevail,” he said.

Brnovich said he took on the Tucson ordinance not just on the question of state preemption but to protect “the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Arizonans.” That goes to arguments also advanced by Michael Rusing on behalf of the National Rifle Association that allowing Tucson to destroy firearms reduces the supply in both Tucson and around the state, a move he said was political.

“The only purpose of the program can be to keep as many firearms as possible out of private hands or, put differently, to deliberately suppress the number of people keeping and bearing arms within Tucson and throughout the state,” he wrote.

The justice sidestepped those arguments, with Pelander saying he and his colleagues saw no reason to even address that contention given that it is clear the state’s power to regulate firearms clearly overrules local ordinances.


Arizona charter cities:

Avondale, Bisbee, Casa Grande, Chandler, Douglas, Flagstaff, Glendale, Goodyear, Holbrook, Mesa, Nogales, Peoria, Phoenix, Prescott, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tucson and Winslow, Yuma.

Source: League of Arizona Cities and Towns


  1. I find it reprehensible that so few would attempt to destroy so much of our existing US history by removing the monuments and memorials that have been erected so that the past actions and dramatic events would be remembered and hopefully not repeated. In my humble opinion: if that is the way they choose “One world order” to be silently forced upon every single person in America, then we Americans can expect to become like the ” EU” citizens who no longer have a state identity. We will become an unidentifiable class of people that can no longer be proud of saying “I am an American”, We no longer matter! What can we expect next? The destruction of Mt. Rushmore? All vestiges of the Civil rights movements removed? All war memorials? The tomb of the unknown soldiers? Slowly but surly we are being robbed of our National Identity. The majority of the people who are doing this weren’t even alive during the civil rights movement and have no knowledge of American history. You are offended by our historical memories? I’ll tell you what offends me you worthless sacks of feces. your very existence in my country and world, your pitiful ignorance and your miserable lack of intellect and last but not least the blatant disrespect your Mothers displayed when they neglected to use her rights under Roe vs Wade.

  2. The above comment is obviously referring to the pending fate of Confederate war memorials in Arizona, a place where only one battle was fought, only Union soldiers suffered injuries and deaths, and the Confederates (imported from Texas) slaughtered the Apache nation after one of the Confederate rude boys crossed sword and knives with Apache braves and died as a result. Jackie goes off on a hundred tangents all having to do with her version of history versus any others, and her entitlement to have her history preserved at the price of many others’ continuing to have horrid memories. Anything less is “reprehensible.” All the rest is hyperbole and absolutely beside the point of whether the plaques being debated memorialize anything at all other than that there was a Confederacy and for two weeks its soldiers terrorized local Arizonans. Poor Jackie wants to preserve her white identity and individualism. Calm donw, Jackie. They’re yours whether or not there’s a stone in the ground or a name assigned to a highway. And you can stop worrying about me and my friends’ and family’s identity. We know who we are already. Amen.

    My main point is writing is to decry the AZ Supreme Court’s decision to override Tucson’s effective gun-repossession law in order to placate the NRA and state officials in its service. The Tucson program was effective precisely because it destroyed deadly weapons without legitimate owners or whose owners decided not to play around with guns as if they were toys. The state law preventing the destruction of these weapons, in fact insisting that they must be resold, is not only ugly and stupid in practice, it creates a situation where any city in Arizona that is innovative on any occasion, on any topic or service, can effectively be over-ridden by action of a hostile Legislature and Governor — and let’s be real, when aren’t our Legislature and Governor hostile to Arizona’s cities? All the time. Once more adherence to ill-written constitutional verbiage results in errant law, law that doesn’t even make sense practically, let alone literally.

  3. Actually rules of evidence are clear, evidence can not be destroyed or improperly disposed of. That is a seventh century federal statute. So it may have changed in the last few decades as since 1982 a large number of pieces of legislature ignored the concepts by the founding fathers as they wrote the bill of right after they won the war for independence and tried to govern this nation. But in essence and really it would likely have to be up to the supreme court at this point with the number of cases ruled both ways, that evidence gathered that is not a copy of the material evidence should be returned to whom the courts took it from when it is no longer material to the case, ie after all appeals are exhausted or the person is found not guilty. But leaving the power in the hands of the states is good starting point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

firearms, Tucson, Yuma, Mexico, lawsuit, judge, Yuma, Phoenix, border, gun dealers, cartels

Gun dealers fighting Mexico’s claim they’re responsible for violence (access required)

Attorneys for five Arizona gun dealers are asking a federal judge to toss out a claim by the Mexican government that they are responsible for violence in that country. In a new court filing, the team of lawyers says nothing in the complaint alleges any evidence that the weapons sold by the five companies -- three in Tucson, one in Yuma and one in Phoenix -- actually were used by Mexican cartels in commission of a crime.