After President Obama opened the door to temporary legal status for more than a million young immigrants who came to the United States as children, Arizona and other states imposed their own hurdles to these deferred action beneficiaries living and working in the United States as the policy intended. On Thursday, a federal judge suggested he would likely find unconstitutional an Arizona policy denying driver’s licenses to these Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals beneficiaries. In a ruling declining to temporarily block Gov. Jan Brewer’s policy pending trial, U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell — a George W. Bush appointee and former clerk to the late conservative Justice Williams Rehnquist — said there is likely no rational justification for Brewer flouting federal immigration policy and treating deferred action beneficiaries differently than all other temporary legal residents:

The Governor’s disagreement with the DACA program may be a rational political or policy view in the broad sense – reasonable people certainly can disagree on an issue as complex and difficult as immigration – but it provides no justification for saying that an Arizona driver’s license may be issued to one person who has been permitted to remain temporarily in the country on deferred action status – say for an individual humanitarian reason – while another person who has been permitted to remain temporarily in the country on deferred action status under the DACA program is denied a license. … The Governor’s political disagreement with the DACA program as “backdoor amnesty” does not change the fact that both individuals have been allowed by the federal government to live and work here, nor does it identify a reason that one of the individuals presents less of a driver’s-license-related risk to the State.

The DACA program was intended to give young undocumented immigrants access to legal employment while they remain in the country, but depriving these beneficiaries of driver’s licenses of and other basic government services imposes major obstacles to achieving that goal. This hostility toward federal immigration policy should come as no surprise from the state that brought us SB 1070 and other discriminatory immigration laws, many parts of which have already been struck down by courts.

In opting not to block Brewer’s policy pending trial, Judge Campbell reasoned that the plaintiffs were not suffering irreparable harm, because most of them either continued to drive without a license out of necessity, or had other means of transportation. But this does not mitigate the risk that these immigrants incur every day they drive without a license, nor the public safety risks and hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims costs imposed by uninsured drivers. These factors will likely be a consideration in a final ruling by Campbell, and he appears poised to find Arizona’s policy a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Campbell also rejected the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

Under a new law in Arizona, local officials will be required to put guns that may have been used in crimes back onto the market. On Monday night, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed a bill that makes it illegal for Arizona municipalities to destroy the weapons that they collect at gun buybacks — events where people can turn in their firearms, no questions asked, in exchange for money or gift cards. Instead, government officials must resell those weapons.

The law is a brainchild of the National Rifle Association, which tried to garner support for the measure by asserting that the government has a secret agenda of confiscating and destroying citizens’ weapons:

One of the letters in support was from the National Rifle Association, which argued that selling seized or forfeited guns “would maintain their value, and their sale to the public would help recover public funds.” The NRA letter said the bill doesn’t prevent a private group from holding an event and destroying the weapons.

“However, this measure would ensure that taxpayer resources are not utilized to pursue a political agenda of destroying firearms,” according to the letter, sent April 22 and signed by Brent Gardner with the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

Under Arizona’s law, municipalities must use their profits from the sale of bought back guns to pay for their budgets. It’s not clear what would happen if an illegal weapon — like the missile launcher found in Seattle — turned up at a buyback.

Guns seized in government buybacks have been later traced back to crimes, including the weapon used by the Pentagon Shooter. In that case, Tennessee officials (that state has a law similar to Arizona’s) sold back a gun in 2005 that was later traded to a gun dealer, then used in a crime. Another crime gun used in a Las Vegas Courthouse shooting followed a similar trajectory from government to criminal hands.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

The county that hosts the self-professed “toughest sheriff in America” settled yet another lawsuit for $1.4 million last week. In sum, Arizona’s Maricopa County has now paid at least $4.2 million to settle nine lawsuits alleging corrupt investigations by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. “Those totals do not include millions of dollars more in attorneys’ fees for the plaintiffs and costs to defend the county against the lawsuit,” according to the Arizona Republic.

The settlements arise out of search warrants and criminal charges against city players, including judges, considered “political enemies” of Thomas and Arpaio. Thomas was disbarred in April for abusing his prosecutorial powers, as the disciplinary panel called his collaboration with Arpaio an “unholy alliance.” But Arpaio, known for his flagrant anti-Latino practices and misuse of government funds, remains the county sheriff, in spite of a close election this November, and an ongoing movement to hold a recall election, which may face procedural obstacles. The corruption lawsuits are just one category of litigation launched against Arpaio, whose latest initiatives have included arming deputies with automatic weapons to prevent so-called “illegals” from escaping, and developing an armed “posse” to patrol schools that includes actor Steven Seagal. Others allege denial of an inmate’s medicine that caused her death, racial profiling, and grievous practices against Latinos.

Thomas, meanwhile, announced last week he will run for Governor, committing to protect public safety, ensure border security, and fight corruption. The Phoenix News Times is taking a poll to see who has a better chance of winning: Thomas or Clifford the Big Red Dog.

The Tucson, Arizona Police Department held a gun buyback on the anniversary of the 2011 Tucson mass shooting, with the intention of melting down the 200-plus firearms they received. But now the National Rifle Association, which vowed to put a stop to it, appears poised to get its wish. The Arizona Senate approved a measure 18-12 that prevents local municipalities from destroying the firearms, following the House’s action earlier this year.

State Sen. Rick Murphy (R) said gun buybacks “accomplish nothing other than make people feel good,” and the measure is about “protecting taxpayers.” NRA board member and lobbyist Todd Rathner made a similar claim in January that local government must sell seized or abandoned property according to state law.

Sen. Judy Burges’s (R) concern is that gun buybacks create more “predators”:

“Unfortunately, murder, violence and insanity are built in to the human condition and likely always will be,” she said.

Limiting weapons ignores another fact, she said: “There are two types of animals: predators and prey. “When we take away individuals’ right to defend themselves, we create more predators.”

Meanwhile, one gun group, the Armed Citizen Project, has offered to “take back” the city by handing out free shot guns and ammunition to Tucson residents.