While I applaud any local action to reduce “straw purchase” in our community as a means to reduce the number of firearms going into the hands of prohibited possessors, I continue to wonder why local law enforcement officials don’t enforce ARS 13-3102 A 5- which makes it illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to a prohibited possessor. Enforcement of that statute would, in my opinion, be a more direct way of addressing the “straw purchaser” problem.
Not an expert but I just got done doing some research around the topic.
On the legal background, while it's true that ARS § 13-3102 (A)(5) makes knowingly selling or transferring a firearm to a prohibited possessor illegal, there isn't any requirement (or seemingly even a mechanism) for private dealers to perform a background check to find out what the potential buyer's status is. So with the exception of the potential buyer actually admitting their status as a prohibited possessor (or its qualifying criteria) on their own, private dealers would seem to be largely immune from any liability here.
Also as strange as it would seem to not report the loss or the theft of an expensive (and dangerous) weapon to law enforcement, there are not even federal or state legal requirements for recordkeeping of firearms sales or transfers between private parties within the state. It seems the only record of a firearms sale in Arizona would be through purchasing it through a Federal Firearm Licensed dealer and filling out Form 4473. As is, it would seem unless those private parties create and retain their own paperwork and report all thefts or losses, there might not be any evidence that a firearm that ended up in the possession of a prohibited possessor wasn't directly sold or transferred by the original registered purchaser.
So it seems without this ordinance, one could easily hide the illegal sale or transfer to a prohibited possessor under a fictitious theft or loss to avoid even the small chance of liability from ARS § 13-3102 (A)(5). And without requiring reporting the loss or theft of a firearm within 48 hours, one could potentially obscure a relationship with financial transfers that could prove a sale was made. Also while ARS § 13-2907 already addresses false reports to law enforcement in general, I also noticed that the ordinance also specifically makes falsely reporting firearm theft or loss illegal as well.
Considering firearms legislation in Arizona specifically prevents political subdivisions from creating their own, it'll be interesting to see whether this ordinance threads that particular needle.
While I applaud any local action to reduce “straw purchase” in our community as a means to reduce the number of firearms going into the hands of prohibited possessors, I continue to wonder why local law enforcement officials don’t enforce ARS 13-3102 A 5- which makes it illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to a prohibited possessor. Enforcement of that statute would, in my opinion, be a more direct way of addressing the “straw purchaser” problem.
Not an expert but I just got done doing some research around the topic.
On the legal background, while it's true that ARS § 13-3102 (A)(5) makes knowingly selling or transferring a firearm to a prohibited possessor illegal, there isn't any requirement (or seemingly even a mechanism) for private dealers to perform a background check to find out what the potential buyer's status is. So with the exception of the potential buyer actually admitting their status as a prohibited possessor (or its qualifying criteria) on their own, private dealers would seem to be largely immune from any liability here.
Also as strange as it would seem to not report the loss or the theft of an expensive (and dangerous) weapon to law enforcement, there are not even federal or state legal requirements for recordkeeping of firearms sales or transfers between private parties within the state. It seems the only record of a firearms sale in Arizona would be through purchasing it through a Federal Firearm Licensed dealer and filling out Form 4473. As is, it would seem unless those private parties create and retain their own paperwork and report all thefts or losses, there might not be any evidence that a firearm that ended up in the possession of a prohibited possessor wasn't directly sold or transferred by the original registered purchaser.
So it seems without this ordinance, one could easily hide the illegal sale or transfer to a prohibited possessor under a fictitious theft or loss to avoid even the small chance of liability from ARS § 13-3102 (A)(5). And without requiring reporting the loss or theft of a firearm within 48 hours, one could potentially obscure a relationship with financial transfers that could prove a sale was made. Also while ARS § 13-2907 already addresses false reports to law enforcement in general, I also noticed that the ordinance also specifically makes falsely reporting firearm theft or loss illegal as well.
Considering firearms legislation in Arizona specifically prevents political subdivisions from creating their own, it'll be interesting to see whether this ordinance threads that particular needle.
Thank you for bringing us news we may not want to hear but need to know.
Thanks for the briefs on decisions/discussions by local school and municipal boards. Very informative.