State Lawmakers Aim to Penalize City Officials Over Proposed Gun Legislation

State lawmakers are pushing forward with legislation that could impose personal fines on local officials who introduce gun regulations.

Senate Bill 1705, which has recently received final approval, targets elected and appointed officials, particularly those from the Pima County Board of Supervisors and the city of Tucson. The bill permits judges to impose a $5,000 civil penalty for any official who “knowingly and willfully” contravenes state statutes that restrict local control over firearm laws.

This legislative move comes after a Pima County Superior Court ruling invalidated an ordinance that obligated gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours or face fines up to $1,000. Judge Greg Sakall cited existing laws that prevent local governments from enacting regulations stricter than state laws.

Michael Infanzon, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, emphasizes the necessity of personal accountability. He argues that merely striking down illegal ordinances is insufficient; local officials need financial repercussions to discourage such actions in the first place.

While the Senate has already passed the bill, the state’s Democratic governor has yet to respond directly to this specific initiative, although she has a history of vetoing similar gun-related legislation. This includes attempts to permit firearms on school campuses and to expand self-defense laws.

Infanzon explains the challenges faced by those who oppose local gun ordinances. The process often involves legal complaints to the Attorney General, which can escalate into costly lawsuits. He notes that previous challenges, such as the one involving Tucson, ended in court with the city being deemed unlawful.

Current penalties for local violations of gun regulation laws are not particularly effective; the maximum fine of $50,000 is imposed on taxpayer funds rather than personally on the officials responsible. SB1705 aims to change this paradigm, placing the onus of financial penalties directly on local authorities.

The bill explicitly prohibits local governments from utilizing public funds to defend officials accused of infringing upon these laws. Furthermore, it guarantees that fines levied against culpable officials will not be reimbursed by the government.

Infanzon believes that the threat of a personal financial penalty will effectively deter officials from proposing or enacting unlawful ordinances. Nonetheless, proving culpability will require substantial evidence of knowledge and intent, particularly if they were advised against specific actions by legal counsel.

Arguments against the ordinance have yet to materialize; no representatives from either Tucson or Pima County have voiced their opposition during discussions on SB1705.