Judge shoots down Pima County requirement to report lost or stolen firearms within 2 days

A Pima County Superior Court judge has blocked a mandate passed by the Board of Supervisors last March requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours or face a $1,000 fine. 

Supervisor Rex Scott proposed the measure during a March 2024 meeting, saying he hoped it would prove to be a deterrent against so-called “straw buyers” who purchase firearms and then flip them to prohibited possessors who can’t pass background checks.

The Goldwater Institute — joined by the Arizona Citizens Defense League gun-rights group and Chris King, a Republican who sits on the Vail Unified School District board  — filed suit weeks later, arguing Arizona state law “broadly prohibits” county and city governments from creating and enforcing such ordinances.

In a decision Tuesday, Judge Greg Sakall ruled the county’s ordinance is preempted by Arizona law and issued a permanent injunction against the measure. 

During the March meeting, Scott defended the measure. 

Under the ordinance, “straw purchasers will be prevented or deterred from claiming that a firearm if they bought and gave to a prohibited possessor was lost or stolen in an unreported theft. And on the prohibited possessor side, this will prevent or deter them from falsely falsely claiming that their firearms were lost or stolen when law enforcement attempts to take them,” Scott said. 

“The ordinance is designed to combat straw buyers,” Scott said. “The ordinance is designed to make sure that prohibited possessors do not obtain weapons. … This is a small step.”

The mandate passed 4-1 with Supervisor Steve Christy—the board’s lone Republican—voting against it.

While federal officials have moved to limit straw purchases by pursuing dozens of cases in Arizona, thousands of guns have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border into cartel arsenals. 

At least 2,259 firearms recovered in Mexico and Central America after violent crimes were traced to gun stores in Pima County, according to records from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms compiled and released last year by a group that seeks to prevent gun trafficking. In response, the Mexican government filed two lawsuits, including one aimed at five Arizona gun stores. 

The Goldwater Institute hailed Sakall’s decision, calling it a victory for firearm owners. They wrote the court’s decision is ” based in part on the premise that the county cannot enact any firearm-related regulations unless expressly authorized by state law.” 

“The new ordinance wasn’t just illegal—it took aim at the wrong people,” the organization said. “Rather than target criminals who steal firearms, the requirement would have re-victimized law-abiding gun owners who experience the loss or theft of a firearm. Some may not even realize they are victims until much later.

As part of his challenge, King said his apartment was burglarized while the Air Force veteran and his wife were on active duty and he didn’t discover the theft of a firearm until he returned a week later. 

“I’m grateful the court recognized that Pima County officials are not above the law,” King said in a statement published Tuesday. “Firearm owners like me shouldn’t have to pay exorbitant fines as punishment for being robbed.”

“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,” said Parker Jackson, a staff attorney with the Goldwater Institute. 

The Pima County Attorney’s Office summarized the case in their own statement and said the county will consider their options “moving forward.” 

PCAO said the county’s ordinance aimed to prevent “illegal transfers of firearms to prohibited possessors who could then use them in the commission of serious crimes.” 

Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney Sam Brown argued on behalf of the county, saying that the ordinance “was not overruled by a state law that prohibits local jurisdictions from regulating the possession of firearms, because it did not affect anyone’s right to possess a gun,” officials said. Co-counsel Diego Rivera also challenged the plaintiffs’ standing to bring the case because “they had not shown they had been adversely affected by the ordinance.” 

However, Sakall ruled against the county and issued a permanent injunction preventing the county from implementing or enforcing the ordinance. 

Scott said he would not comment on the decision until the Board of Supervisors could meet to discuss the judge’s decision and “whatever options we have moving forward with our attorneys.”

In a guest opinion piece published by Tucson Sentinel last June, Scott defended his ordinance, writing that on “many occasions, guns supposedly lost or stolen end up sold to people prohibited under state law from having a gun through a ‘straw purchase.'” 

“Prohibited possessors in Arizona include convicted felons, those on probation for a domestic violence offense and undocumented immigrants. Our ordinance would assist law enforcement in their attempts to prevent straw purchases, which are illegal under state law,” he wrote. “Gun owners who actually suffer the loss or theft of a weapon have nothing to fear from this ordinance. 

Prohibited possessors include those convicted of a felony or domestic violence offense, people who have been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment and undocumented migrants.

“The intent is to go after those who violate state law to try to get guns into the hands of prohibited possessors, who commit many crimes within our county,” Scott said.