Mint Colt Python turned in for destruction in Tucson, Arizona, 2013.
Tucson, Arizona has been defying Arizona state law for several years. In 2013, the state government passed a law to prevent local governments from destroying valuable property (firearms) that came into their possession. It was passed, in large part, because the people of Arizona were tired of local governments using their power to create political propaganda designed to denigrate and destroy Second Amendment rights.
Denigration of Second Amendment rights is the primary purpose of gun "buy backs" and gun destruction. When local governments can no longer push the message of "Guns Bad", they stop doing gun "buy backs". Tucson ignored the law to keep making its political propaganda.
In 2016, the Arizona legislature passed SB 1487, which allows a state legislature to file a complaint with the State AG if a local government "violates state law or the constitution of Arizona." If the AG finds the complaint to be valid, the local government entity has 30 days to rescind the law. If they do not, the AG is to direct the State Treasurer to stop sending state funds to the government entity.
The Attorney General's Office is in the process of enforcing that SB 1487 for the Tucson Government's scofflaw violations. From tucson.com:
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has issued an ultimatum to Tucson over its policy of destroying confiscated handguns and automatic rifles.In the comments at tucson.com, Ken Rineer made the obvious critique about "automatic rifles". From the comments:
Stop the practice immediately or face an expensive court battle, the office has warned city officials.
"The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has issued an ultimatum to Tucson over its policy of destroying confiscated handguns and AUTOMATIC rifles."
Really Joe Ferguson? How many of those $4,820 firearms were select fire? Didn't you mean semi-automatic?
You know better.
I know Ken. He is a fearless and long term Second Amendment supporter. He has worked to force the Tucson government to live up to their oaths of office for decades.
Local governments do not have First Amendment rights. From thewashingtonpost.com:
(Note that local governments and state agencies likely have no First Amendment rights against state governments, because the state is entitled to control the conduct of its subdivisions; likewise, federal agencies have no First Amendment rights against the federal government. The question is whether state and local governments, agents of one sovereign, have First Amendment rights against the federal government, another sovereign.)After a long train of abuses, the Tucson government is finally facing some consequences. The Arizona Supreme Court will be the entity who decides of Tucson may violate state law with impunity.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
Posts
5 comments:
Defense of property, even if you damage it to keep it. My insurance company replaces windshields for free.
I reported a stolen gun in Tucson, never heard another word about it. I did see an identical gun in the display case in Yuma police head quarters. a double barrel ,22 mag derringer.
When I had my FFL the cost was 10 dollars a year. I have been told the cost is now 2,500 dollars. can anyone explain how a piece of paper can be worth 2,500 dollars to operate a legal business or exercise a constitutional right?
The High Standard .22 magnum derringers were pretty common.
Was it one of those?
Yes
Post a Comment