Scottsdale considers lawsuit against Arizona over controversial Axon bill

Here is a detailed explanation of the situation between Scottsdale and the state of Arizona regarding the so-called “Axon bill.”

Summary of the Situation

The city of Scottsdale is actively considering filing a lawsuit against the state of Arizona over a controversial new law, HB 2772, which restricts the ability of cities and towns to regulate the design, building, and operation of firearms. The bill is commonly known as the “Axon bill” because it was widely seen as a direct response to a specific safety dispute involving the headquarters of Axon Enterprise, the maker of Taser devices and body cameras, in Scottsdale.

Key Background: The Axon Dispute

• The Company: Axon Enterprise Inc. is a major Scottsdale employer and a global leader in law enforcement technology.

• The Issue: In 2023, Axon announced plans to build a new headquarters. As part of the design, the company proposed an on-site restaurant and bar that would be open to the public.

• The City’s Concern: Scottsdale city planners raised safety concerns about the proximity of the proposed restaurant to Axon’s firearm testing range, where functional weapons are used to test camera systems. City code prohibits the sale of alcohol within a certain distance of a shooting range.

• The Stalemate: The city requested Axon either move the testing range or not open the restaurant to the public. Axon argued this was an unreasonable constraint on their business and a misapplication of the code, as the range was for private testing, not a public commercial range.

The State’s Response: HB 2772 (The “Axon Bill”)

During the 2024 legislative session, Arizona lawmakers passed HB 2772. The bill does not mention Axon by name but its language directly addresses the situation.

• What the Bill Does: The law prohibits cities and towns from regulating the “design, building or operation” of a private firearm testing range located on private property. It specifically bars cities from using zoning or alcohol ordinances to restrict such ranges.

• The “Home Rule” Conflict: Arizona’s constitution grants significant autonomy to its cities, known as “home rule.” This allows cities to govern their own local affairs. Scottsdale and other municipalities argue that zoning and public safety ordinances are classic examples of local control.

Why Scottsdale is Considering a Lawsuit

Scottsdale’s potential lawsuit is not about the merits of Axon’s project but about state overreach and the erosion of local control.

1. Violation of Home Rule: The city contends that HB 2772 is an unconstitutional violation of its right to self-governance. They argue that zoning and public safety are fundamental municipal powers that the state cannot arbitrarily revoke for a specific type of business.

2. Setting a Dangerous Precedent: City officials are concerned that if the state can step in to override local ordinances for one powerful company, it sets a precedent for the state to nullify any local law that a business finds inconvenient. This undermines the authority of all cities in Arizona.

3. Public Safety Concerns: At its core, the city’s original position was based on a public safety rationale—keeping alcohol consumption separate from active shooting areas. The state law now forbids the city from making those safety judgments.

Axon’s and the State’s Position

• Axon’s View: The company argued that Scottsdale’s application of the code was misguided and threatened its expansion plans. They successfully lobbied the state legislature to intervene, framing it as an issue of supporting business growth and protecting the rights of gun-related businesses from overregulation.

• The State’s View: The bill’s supporters, including Governor Katie Hobbs who signed it into law, argued it was necessary to protect Arizona’s firearm industry from potential overreach by local governments and to ensure consistent state-level policy.

What Happens Next?

• Legal Review: The Scottsdale City Council has directed its city attorney to explore and prepare a legal challenge against the state.

• Potential Outcome: If filed, the lawsuit would likely be heard in Maricopa County Superior Court. The core argument would be that HB 2772 is unconstitutional because it infringes on the city’s home rule authority guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.

• Broader Impact: The case is being watched closely by other municipalities and business interests in Arizona, as its outcome could significantly redefine the balance of power between the state and its cities.