On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court announced that they will hear the Arizona Attorney General’s Office 1487 challenge to the City of Tucson’s gun ordinance. Oral argument will be held at 10:45 a.m. on February 28, 2017, at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.
“I am pleased to hear that the Arizona Supreme Court sees value in hearing a case that revolves around the rule of law. My confidence in the legal system is heightened. As for the matter before the court, it is not the intention of my constituents or myself that the City of Tucson should be punished for their choice to pursue a political agenda that runs counter to our national values enshrined in the 2nd amendment. Instead it gives the City Council the opportunity to subscribe to the rule of law. There is a simple solution in this matter and that is for the City Council to yield to the rule of law and observe that which every citizen in our state must do, live according to the legitimate law of the land,” said Finchem.
The Court will address the following issues:
(1) Is the Court’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 41-194.01(B) mandatory or discretionary and, if the latter, should the Court accept jurisdiction?
(2) Do either A.R.S. §§ 41-194.01(A) or (B)(2) violate Arizona’s Constitution?
(3) Are the bond provisions of A.R.S. § 41-194.01(B)(2) mandatory or discretionary?
(4) Are the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-194.01 severable?
(5) Under Article XIII, section 2, of the Arizona Constitution, does Tucson City Code § 2-142 supersede inconsistent provisions in A.R.S. § 12-945(B) and § 13-3108(F)?
(6) If Tucson City Code § 2-142 does not supersede and therefore violates conflicting provisions of state law, would appropriate relief include an order instructing the State Treasurer to withhold and redistribute certain state-shared monies from the City if the City does not resolve the violation within a specified time?