Pima County Superior Court Judge Greg Sakall issued a ruling earlier this week striking down Pima County Ordinance 2024-2. The ordinance was passed by the County Board of Supervisors in March 2024 and levied a fine of $1,000 against legal gun owners who failed to report a lost or stolen firearm within two days. According to the Goldwater Institute, which led the legal fight, the board appeared to be fully aware of the ordinance’s illegality “when it brazenly passed the ordinance.”
Goldwater took up the case of Air Force veteran Chris King and the Pima County-based Arizona Citizens Defense League. The group argued before the court that unless authorized by the Arizona legislature, no county or municipality in the state is legally permitted to enact any rule or ordinance that is firearms-related and exceeds any regulations already passed by the state.
In his ruling, Judge Sakall agreed that the county board’s actions violated multiple provisions of state law, writing that there is “no genuine issue of material fact,” and that the ordinance was pre-emptively rendered illegal by A.R.S. § 13- 3108(B) and (D) which state:
B. “A political subdivision of this state shall not require the licensing or registration of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components or related accessories or prohibit the ownership, purchase, sale or transfer of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components, or related accessories.”
D. “A political subdivision of this state shall not enact any rule or ordinance that relates to firearms and is more prohibitive than or that has a penalty that is greater than any state law penalty. A political subdivision’s rule or ordinance that relates to firearms and that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than state law, whether enacted before or after July 29, 2010, is null and void.”
As noted by Goldwater when it issued a letter to the board on behalf of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, the ordinance was passed even after “a majority of the board made comments prior to passage of the ordinance recognizing that firearms regulations belong at the state level.”
The majority Democrat board also ignored the objections of the sole dissenting Supervisor, Republican Steve Christy, who warned during the board’s March 2024 meeting: “Are we opening up Pima County to numerous lawsuits with various entities including issues with the state legislature as this definitely has conflicts with it?”
Christy suggested that the move by the board’s Democrat majority was intended as a “a typical diversion and detraction,” from the county’s more pressing issues such as illegal immigration.
Democrat Supervisor Dr. Matt Heinz even implicitly observed that such lawmaking is the purview of the state government when he said what he referred to as “impactful meaningful reform that affects gun safety” would only happen “if there is a Democrat Governor, Senate, and House in the state of Arizona.”
King, an NRA-certified firearms instructor who had a firearm stolen when his home was burglarized while he was deployed on active-duty outside the state, praised the ruling saying, “I’m grateful the court recognized that Pima County officials are not above the law. Firearm owners like me shouldn’t have to pay exorbitant fines as punishment for being robbed.”
Goldwater Staff Attorney Parker Jackson added in a statement, “Today’s ruling is a significant victory for the rule of law, for gun owners statewide, and for the state’s ability to prevent rogue cities and counties from creating a confusing patchwork of local firearm restrictions.
On Wednesday, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to rescind its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, as well as its $45 monthly penalty for unvaccinated employees. The board mentioned but didn’t vote on rehiring those fired for not getting vaccinated, with backpay, as well as reimbursing those who paid the penalty for not getting vaccinated.
Although the board rolled back its punitive measures for COVID-19 compliance, it implemented a reward for obedient county employees: 16 hours of paid time off (PTO) every year for those who stay up to date with their COVID-19 booster shots.
During Wednesday’s meeting, most of the board were reluctant to drop the vaccine mandate and $45 penalty. Only two supervisors, Grijalva and Matt Heinz, opposed rolling back the vaccine mandate. Heinz said that the county should sue the state. Bronson responded sarcastically that Heinz’s suggestion was a “good way to spend taxpayer dollars.”
Only Supervisor Steve Christy opposed the PTO, arguing that individuals shouldn’t be paid for receiving voluntary medical treatment. Christy noted that the county didn’t conduct a cost analysis. Supervisor Sharon Bronson shared Christy’s concern about the cost to the county, though she voted for the PTO. She questioned the efficacy of a yearly booster, and contended that the county didn’t offer an equal incentive for annual flu shots.
The board’s decision came five days before a new state law, HB2498, goes into effect prohibiting vaccine mandates for local government employees.
It’s a good day to get boosted! The new bivalent vaccines are built to protect against COVID-19's contagious and immune-evading Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants. Get yours at one of our clinics: https://t.co/9sSIsnUj0l
Supervisor Adelita Grijalva said that the new state law constitutes an overreach. Grijalva insisted that their county’s COVID-19 mandates worked to curb COVID-19 infections and deaths.
“I guess, go ahead and follow the law in this situation,” said Grijalva.
Supervisor Rex Scott concurred with Grijalva. He suggested that the county take next steps through the County Supervisors Association of Arizona (CSA) Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) to increase their power and authority.
“It is not just Pima County that has concerns about moves made by the legislature and governor to restrict our statutory authority as the public health authority,” said Scott.
Bronson agreed, inferring that CSA was their best option for adjusting the balance of power between county and state. Bronson referred to the ongoing issue over the vaccine mandate as “drama.”
The county first issued its vaccine mandate last August. Then last September, they issued a $45 monthly penalty for unvaccinated employees in the form of a health insurance premium surcharge. Only employees with a medical or religious exemption were excluded from the surcharge. In all, 236 employees paid that penalty.
In April, Governor Doug Ducey signed HB2498 into law, which prohibited local governments from mandating their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Despite the inevitable unlawfulness of their mandate, the board decided in May to continue its vaccine mandate for new hires and promotions up until HB2498 went into effect.
Last month, Attorney General Mark Brnovich sued the county over the vaccine mandate: State of Arizona v. City of Tucson (CV2022-011416 in the Maricopa County Superior Court). The last action on that case took place on September 3, with a motion for compulsory arbitration.
Overall, the county received 284 medical or religious exemption requests for the COVID-19 vaccine: 257 religious, 27 medical.
The county granted 149 religious accommodations; 70 were incomplete, 19 were denied. Of the 27 medical exemption requests, the county granted 26; the one denial was due to a rescission of an offer of employment.
Watch the Pima County Board of Supervisors discuss the COVID-19 mandate below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
