Tweet
Back in 2010, the State of Arizona passed legislation that prohibited towns, cities, and counties, from destroying firearms that came into their possession through seizure, unclaimed property, etc., instead requiring such firearms to be sold to properly licensed FFLs.
The city of Tuscon then passed a local ordinance directing their police department to destroy such firearms, essentially claiming that that could do whatever they want as they are a charter city.
Of course, the state took them to court and yesterday the AZ Supreme Court ruled that the state law supercedes Tucson’s ordinance.
The full opinion of the court is here:
We often hear that the anti-gunners and California gun laws are spreading nationwide and that AZ and other states are next in line to follow CA’s lead. While that can’t be entirely discounted, I would just like to point out a few highlights from the court’s opinion. Which in essence says we don’t care how CA does it. We don’t do that here.”
The city of Tuscon then passed a local ordinance directing their police department to destroy such firearms, essentially claiming that that could do whatever they want as they are a charter city.
Of course, the state took them to court and yesterday the AZ Supreme Court ruled that the state law supercedes Tucson’s ordinance.
The full opinion of the court is here:
We often hear that the anti-gunners and California gun laws are spreading nationwide and that AZ and other states are next in line to follow CA’s lead. While that can’t be entirely discounted, I would just like to point out a few highlights from the court’s opinion. Which in essence says we don’t care how CA does it. We don’t do that here.”
62 The City also proposes a balancing test, under which courts would balance the competing state and municipal interests to determine if the asserted statewide interest is “sufficiently concrete and identifiable to outweigh the local interest of home rule cities in municipal self-government.” In support of that concept, the City cites Johnson v. Bradley, in which the California Supreme Court stated that “as a condition of state legislative supremacy,” the state must show “a dimension demonstrably transcending identifiable municipal interests,”
63 We reject the California approach and the City’s proposed balancing test. It would not aid courts in determining if a particular subject is of statewide interest or rather purely local concern. We therefore decline to follow Johnson and cases from other states that embrace a balancing approach. See U.S. Elevator Corp. v. City of Tulsa, 610 P.2d 791 (Okla. 1980); Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 2014).
64 In addition, a balancing test finds only limited, marginal support in Arizona. In Tucson I, without citing any Arizona authority, the court of appeals found “a balancing test” appropriate in determining whether local or statewide interests were “paramount.” 191 Ariz. at 439. More recently, however, the court of appeals correctly found that a trial court erred in applying a balancing test to resolve a city/state dispute, aptly noting that this Court has never used or approved such a test in this context. Tucson III, 235 Ariz. at 439 16 n.6 (App. 2014). We agree and therefore disapprove Tucson I’s use of a balancing test in its analysis. In short, we find such a test is neither helpful nor appropriate, and instead would potentially cause confusion and inconsistent results, in resolving issues under article 13, section 2.
63 We reject the California approach and the City’s proposed balancing test. It would not aid courts in determining if a particular subject is of statewide interest or rather purely local concern. We therefore decline to follow Johnson and cases from other states that embrace a balancing approach. See U.S. Elevator Corp. v. City of Tulsa, 610 P.2d 791 (Okla. 1980); Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 337 (Wis. 2014).
64 In addition, a balancing test finds only limited, marginal support in Arizona. In Tucson I, without citing any Arizona authority, the court of appeals found “a balancing test” appropriate in determining whether local or statewide interests were “paramount.” 191 Ariz. at 439. More recently, however, the court of appeals correctly found that a trial court erred in applying a balancing test to resolve a city/state dispute, aptly noting that this Court has never used or approved such a test in this context. Tucson III, 235 Ariz. at 439 16 n.6 (App. 2014). We agree and therefore disapprove Tucson I’s use of a balancing test in its analysis. In short, we find such a test is neither helpful nor appropriate, and instead would potentially cause confusion and inconsistent results, in resolving issues under article 13, section 2.
Comment