State Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01) advised Pima County that its latest firearms ordinance violates state law.
In a Tuesday letter to the county’s board of supervisors, Nguyen said the ordinance, which imposes reporting requirements and fines on gun owners related to loss or theft of a firearm, was “extremely troubling” since it amounted to regulatory authority only available to the state legislature per state law, supported by a 2017 Arizona Supreme Court ruling. Nguyen pointed out that a similar ordinance by the city of Tucson was determined unlawful by then-Attorney General Tom Horne in 2013.
“Another attempt to regulate firearms via an illegal ordinance by Pima County,” said Nguyen.
Nguyen also pointed out that the city of Phoenix’s ordinance regulating unclaimed firearms violated multiple state laws, per Attorney General Kris Mayes last September. Mayes affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court’s determination that firearms regulation remains a statewide concern.
Under Pima County’s new ordinance passed last week, gun owners face up to $1,000 in fines every time they fail to report lost or stolen firearms to police within two days. The board of supervisors passed the ordinance 4-1; only Supervisor Steve Christy voted against it.
In the ordinance, the board of supervisors justified its regulation by relaying that those prohibited from owning firearms have committed a significant number of the county’s firearm-related crimes with the help of straw purchasers. The board reasoned that the ordinance’s reporting requirements would help find and prosecute those straw purchasers.
“Reporting requirements assist with the apprehension and prosecution of straw purchasers, preventing or deterring them from claiming that a firearm they bought and transferred to a prohibited possessor was lost or taken in an unreported theft as well as preventing or deterring prohibited possessors from falsely claiming that their firearms were lost or stolen when law enforcement moves to remove them,” read the ordinance.
The ordinance originally proposed a $300 fine for each failure to report a lost or stolen firearm.
It was Pima County Attorney Laura Conover who suggested an increase in the fine amount to $1,000, in her letter of support to the board. Conover said that her office had handled over 100 cases involving firearms used by prohibited possessors last year, six of which were murder charges. Conover’s letter made no mention of the potential conflict between the ordinance and state law.
“Do we want law enforcement in Pima County to track down the origins of a firearm only after a crime has been committed, only to be told that the firearm was lost or stolen?” said Conover. “Or do we want to provide law enforcement with an opportunity to track down lost or stolen firearms before they land into the hands of prohibited possessors or, worse, the hands of young people or people with mental disabilities?”
The county further justified its ordinance by citing a 1998 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling in City of Tucson v. Rineer and a federal district court ruling on a California law in National Association for Gun Rights v. City of San Jose. Nguyen criticized the county’s justifications as irrelevant to their ordinance.
“Rineer analyzed the validity of a Tucson City Code provision that prohibited using or possessing firearms within Tucson city parks. Rineer also predates the Arizona Supreme Court’s 2017 opinion in City of Tucson,” said Nguyen. “It should go without saying that Arizonans expect county officials to enact laws that comply with Arizona laws, not California laws. Moreover, the ordinance that the federal court considered in the San Jose case did not impose any mandatory reporting requirements, fines, or penalties and bears no resemblance to the Ordinance here.”
Nguyen warned the county that “knowing and willful” violations of state firearm law incur a $50,000 penalty.
Pima County’s firearms ordinance takes effect in April.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) brought her endorsement of Arizona House Speaker and congressional candidate Ben Toma (R-LD27) to the U.S. House floor.
During Tuesday’s House floor session, Lesko praised the state representative as “an accomplished and dedicated leader.” The congresswoman specifically applauded Toma’s work on passing universal school choice, voter ID, border security through e-Verify, and the state’s largest tax cut.
Lesko closed with what sounded like confidence in Toma’s fitness to represent the state at the congressional level.
“Speaker Toma’s career is a testament to his dedication to Arizona, his legacy of leadership will last for years to come,” said Lesko.
Lesko formally endorsed Toma in December, emphasizing Toma’s longtime residence and understanding of the eighth congressional district.
“Ben Toma lives in our district. He knows our district. He cares about the people who live in our district. As a legislator and Speaker of the Arizona House, Ben has a proven, conservative track record for getting things done and for standing up for the principles that have made our nation great. Now, more than ever, we need principled, experienced leaders, like Ben Toma, who will stand up for our values and advance our conservative priorities in Congress. I’m proud to endorse Ben Toma for Congress and will be working hard to get him elected because I know he will do a great job!”
I'm grateful to have the support and trust of Congresswoman Debbie Lesko. Her commitment to serving the West Valley is unparalleled. Thank you, Congresswoman! pic.twitter.com/MqkUoIstjv
Toma also has endorsements from former Sen. Jon Kyl; former Gov. Jan Brewer; State Sens. Frank Carroll (R-LD28) and John Kavanaugh (R-LD03); State Reps. Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), David Livingston (R-LD28), Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), and Justin Wilmeth (R-LD02); Surprise Mayor Skip Hall; former State Rep. Jean McGrath; Maricopa County Treasurer John Allen; Glendale Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff; and former Republican Senate candidate Jim Lamon.
Ten other Republicans who have filed a statement of interest for the eighth congressional district are 2022 attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh, State Sen. Anthony Kern, 2022 Senate candidate Blake Masters, former congressman Trent Franks, Isiah Gallegos, Rollie Stevens, Patrick Briody, Seth Coates, Jon Forsythe, and Jimmy Rodriguez.
An internal poll in December by National Public Affairs, a firm run by former Trump administration staffers, found Hamadeh had between 37 percent (uninformed of endorsements) and 45 percent (informed) voter support: a 23-point lead over the next leading candidate, Masters (14 percent uninformed, 10 percent informed). Franks followed behind (six percent uninformed, seven percent informed), then Toma (seven percent, both informed and uninformed), and then Kern (three percent uninformed, two percent informed). About 30 to 34 percent of polled voters remained undecided.
Another internal poll from last month by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates found that Hamadeh and Masters had equal voter support, both polling at 24 percent, with Franks following behind (nine percent), then Toma and Gallegos (three percent), and then Kern (one percent). 35 percent remained undecided.
Hamadeh has endorsements from a whole host of Trump administration officials, endorsees, and former President Donald Trump himself. Among Hamadeh’s endorsers are Senate candidate Kari Lake, Trump administration national security advisor Robert O’Brian, Trump administration national intelligence director Ric Grennell, Trump administration senior national intelligence advisor Kash Patel, Florida Congressman Cory Mills, and former Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward.
Seven Democrats to have filed a statement of interest for the eighth congressional district are Sheila Bilyeu; Donald Case; Bernadette Greene Placentia; Marc Lewis; Steven Sawdy; Mark Thompson; and Whitten Gregory.
Two Libertarians also filed their statements of interest: January 6 participant Jacob Angeli-Chansley, the “Shaman,” and Alex Kolb.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says that the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will end come April due to a lack of funding, impacting about 552,000 Arizonans who rely on the program for discounted or free internet.
FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks offered that data and insight in his appearance with the director of the Treasury Department Capital Projects Fund, Joseph Wender, before the INCOMPAS Policy Summit last week. As of January, ACP has a total of about $2.5 billion left in remaining funds out of $17 billion in total appropriations. INCOMPAS is an internet and competitive networks association advocating for competition policy; member companies include Amazon, Dish, Google, Microsoft, Netflix and Verizon.
“High-speed internet is not a luxury anymore, it’s an absolute necessity,” said Starks. “If ACP ends, [I] predict that the end result will be that many of these households will be unable to stay online, will be unable to stay connected.”
ACP is part of the $14.2 billion from the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) modifying and extending the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, now near exhausted. ACP gave certain low-income households funds to cover their monthly internet bill, as well as a one-time discount on the purchase of a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet. Monthly discounts amounted to $30 for regular Americans, and $75 for Americans living on tribal lands. Discounted electronic purchases amounted up to $100. Most of the participating companies offered internet plans for which ACP covered the total bill.
ACP-eligible families were households with an income at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, or participants in welfare programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8), public housing, SSI, WIC, or Lifeline; participants in the Free and Reduced-Price School Lunch Program or School Breakfast Program; recipients of a Federal Pell Grant; and participants in tribal-specific programs such as Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance, Tribal TANF, Affordable Housing Programs for American Indians, Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians.
Participating companies in Arizona included Spectrum (Charter Communications Operating), Mediacom, Nexus Telecom, Comcast Xfinity, Metro by T-Mobile, and Cox Communications.
Arizonans have claimed over $313.6 million as of January, according to FCC data. Maricopa County led in claims, using up over $149.7 million in ACP funds for over 266,000 households, followed by Pima County, $52.3 million for 86,200 households; Yuma County, $19.7 million for 31,900 households; Navajo County, $18.8 million for 13,200 households; Apache County, $17.6 million for 11,500 households; Pinal County, $12.7 million for 22,400 households; Mohave County, $7.5 million for 10,100 households; Coconino County, $7.4 million for 6,000 households; Cochise County, $5.8 million for 11,000 households; Yavapai County, $3.8 million for 6,300 households; Santa Cruz County, $2.4 million for 3,800 households; Gila County, $1.4 million for 2,100 households; Graham County, $821,000 for 1,200 households; La Paz County, $510,000 for 800 households; and Greenlee County, $129,000 for 180 households.
The FCC reported that no specific county or household data could be given for $12.6 million funds spanning over 7,400 households.
After ACP provides a partial reimbursement for May, the program will conclude. The FCC reported that over 23 million households were impacted by the ACP wind-down; the agency froze enrollment into the program last month.
Arizonans enrolled with ACP should have received a written notice in January notifying them of ACP’s end. A second notice should be issued by March 19, and a final notice should be issued as part of the last bill or billing cycle including the ACP discount.
An FCC survey of a sample size deemed representative of the entire ACP population reported that over two-thirds of ACP’s 23 million households, about 15.6 million, had inconsistent or zero internet access prior to ACP. 80 percent of those respondents cited affordability as the reason.
The FCC based their analysis on just over 5,300 respondents, or about .02 percent of the total ACP population.
According to the FCC, 50 percent of ACP households were Black or Latino; nearly 50 percent were military households; over 329,000 were tribal households; over 4 million were elderly households; and over 10 million were households with family members over the age of 50.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
State Rep. Alma Hernandez (D-LD03) says she won’t relent in her support of Israel following criticisms of her arranging a bipartisan trip to Israel last week.
Hernandez, who is a Zionist, also debunked claims by certain outlets that the trip was taxpayer-funded, a vacation of sorts, and an impetus to the regular procession of the legislature. Hernandez said that the trip was a means to understanding the ongoing conflict sparked by the Hamas terrorist attack last October: meeting with the families of Israeli and Arabic hostage victims as well as fallen soldiers, and consulting with Palestinians living in Israel.
“It is absurd to suggest we have somehow paused our state government or blew up a budget when committees continued,” said Hernandez. “Some of you forget that you can’t negotiate a budget that is NOT on the table or has never started.”
I want it to be clear that I will never apologize for taking a bipartisan delegation to Israel to learn and see firsthand what is happening. I also will not tolerate false accusations by “reporters” saying we used taxpayer $ for the trip or that this was a fun vacation. Suppose…
— (((Rep.Alma Hernandez))) (@almaforarizona) March 11, 2024
Hernandez said that the trip gave her greater determination to fight antisemitism and “the one-sided media view.” The lawmaker speculated that the focus on her trip was rooted in “the antisemitism that is plaguing [Arizona].”
As Arizona Agenda reported, no senators attended the trip, paid for by itrek (Israel Trek), a New York-based nonprofit bringing graduate business, law, policy, and STEM students to Israel.
Seven Democrats and 10 Republicans joined the delegation: Reps. Conseulo Hernandez (D-LD21), Lydia Hernandez (D-LD24), Christopher Mathis (D-LD18), Keith Seaman (D-LD16), Seth Blattman (D-LD09), Michael Carbone (R-LD25), Neal Carter (R-LD15), Alex Kolodin (R-LD03), Justin Wilmeth (R-LD02), Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), Michele Pena (R-LD23), David Cook (R-LD07), David Livingston (R-LD28), Majority Leader Leo Biasucci (R-LD30), Minority Whip Nancy Gutierrez (D-LD18), and House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27).
Toma told the outlet in a statement that the Israel trip benefitted Arizonans, as the state has economic interests in the nation’s welfare.
“We have a trade office in Israel. We have clear economic reasons to be interested in what happens there,” said Toma. “This is not my first trip. As a matter of fact, that’s gonna be my third trip to Israel, for different reasons. So again, we have our interests.”
Arizona and Israel are considered top trading partners. Three of Arizona’s exported goods account for 73 percent of all exports to Israel according to the Arizona Commerce Authority: $135 million in semiconductors and other electronic components, $125 million in aerospace products and parts, and $26 million in navigational, measuring, electromedical and control instruments.
Arizona opened its first trade and investment office in Israel in 2019.
The bipartisan Arizona delegation visited the Knesset and Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a briefing on the ongoing conflict.
State Sen. Anthony Kern (R-LD27) attempted to prevent the trip from occurring, citing concerns that the lawmakers were improperly wasting valuable legislative session time. He helped defeat a House motion to adjourn so that the 17 lawmakers could make their Israel trip.
Kern claimed a lobbyist paid for the trip, an accusation which Hernandez denied.
Dear Arizona, Here are the names of House legislators going on a lobbyist paid trip to Israel, March 5 to 11, in the middle of the legislative session, with no budget passed, our border wide open, and election integrity issues still not resolved: pic.twitter.com/admFka5uHX
Last December, pro-Hamas activists passed out flyers with Hernandez’s home address near and around her neighborhood. The retaliation occurred after Hernandez refused to support a ceasefire, asserting that she and others who signed onto the anti-ceasefire statement wouldn’t be “negotiating with terrorists” at any point in time.
Absolutely disgusting that this Anti-Israel flyer about me has been circulated in my neighborhood with my home address. I don’t understand how anyone in their right mind believes this is OK. Hearing from concerned neighbors this morning who have shared the flyer & the camera… pic.twitter.com/Ie23lIV4bd
Arizona’s auditing agency for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) found no wrongdoing in its recent audit of Grand Canyon University (GCU).
The Arizona State Approving Agency (SAA) undertook the audit in response to the ongoing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit against GCU for allegedly deceptive advertising and illegal telemarketing. The FTC sued GCU in December, several months after the Department of Education (ED) fined the university over $37 million for allegedly deceiving doctoral students into paying more for their degrees than advertised.
In the SAA letter to GCU reviewed by AZ Free News, SAA said that its audit yielded no evidence supporting the Biden administration’s claims.
“The Arizona SAA did not have any substantiated findings based on our review of Grand Canyon University,” stated SAA’s letter to GCU. “There are no findings impacting the continued approval of Grand Canyon University at this time. There are no follow-up actions required by Grand Canyon University at this time.”
SAA announced its audit in January, the second one to take place in under a year; the last SAA audit occurred last May.
GCU President Brian Mueller told AZ Free News that the SAA’s findings were in agreement with two favorable court rulings in recent years, all of which found GCU to not be guilty of the issues that the Biden administration claims exist. Mueller said that these discrepancies were “troubling,” and further indication of an unjust and purposeful targeting.
“The SAA, our accrediting body and two federal judges all looked at the same set of facts as the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. and came to the complete opposite conclusion,” said Mueller. “To have zero findings, praise and a court ruling that our disclosures are clear on one end and then have the U.S. Department of Education impose its largest fine ever on the other… that is very troubling. To be targeted in this manner by the federal government is an egregious example of overreach and the weaponization of these federal agencies.”
The Higher Learning Commission, GCU’s accrediting body, assessed the university’s doctoral disclosures to be “robust and thorough,” providing a “clear” academic and financial pathway for prospective students.
The Biden administration appears to be alone in its unfavorable assessment of GCU; further records to provide context as to why have not been made available for public review, either.
The lack of transparency prompted the Goldwater Institute to sue the Biden administration last month. ED denied their public records request seeking the documents that informed ED’s decision to fine GCU. The records request was spurred by the fact that ED didn’t include student complaints or visitations to GCU as part of their investigation into the university.
In our report issued several days before ED announced its record fine into the university, the Biden administration apparently coordinated efforts between ED, FTC, and VA to investigate GCU after the university sued ED for denying its nonprofit status. The IRS granted nonprofit status to GCU in 2018, but it took until late 2019 for ED to deny the status.
SAA recognized GCU as a private nonprofit in its most recent audit report.
Several months after GCU sued ED in early 2021, the agency launched a multi-year, off-site review of GCU. Several months after ED’s announcement, the FTC announced that it found GCU in violation of federal law; each violation incurs civil penalties of up to $50,000. The last time the FTC exercised the authority it leveled against GCU was in 1978.
The FTC, ED, and VA began their investigations into GCU in 2022.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
