A law says cops must sell the gun that killed her husband. Will it change?

In 2012, the Arizona Legislature passed a law requiring police departments to sell guns seized in crimes rather than destroy them. Julie Erfle never expected the law to affect her. But this year, it did, reopening an awful wound from her past.

Nick Erfle, Julie’s husband and a Phoenix cop, was killed in 2007 while on duty — shot twice in the back of the head while arresting a suspect. There was no trial for his murderer, who was killed during a police standoff shortly after. Without closure, Erfle, who was left to raise the couple’s two young boys, found herself fixating on the gun that killed him.

Over the years, she wondered about the gun’s past — who sold it to her husband’s killer and where it came from before that. She never thought much about the gun’s future, assuming it had been destroyed.

“That was the end of the story,” she told Phoenix New Times.

It wasn’t. After years of trying to wring information on the weapon from the Phoenix Police Department — a saga that became more difficult when the lead detective on her husband’s case, Michael Polk, was arrested on child porn charges and subsequently fired — Erfle recently learned the department still had the gun and planned to sell it at auction, as Arizona law requires.

“I can’t believe this is happening. This feels very surreal,” Erfle recalled thinking. “I want it destroyed. This needs to be destroyed.” 

Last month, she filed a lawsuit to stop the sale of the gun, citing Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights, which is enshrined in the state constitution. The suit references a CBS News investigation that found that between 2006 and 2022, more than 52,000 guns sold by police agencies ended up at crime scenes. That number doesn’t include guns collected at crime scenes and then resold.

However, the Victims’ Bill of Rights pertains more to court proceedings, which never occurred in her husband’s murder because the suspect was killed. Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego has stated that the city has no plans to sell the gun, but Erfle knows that if she wants to guarantee that outcome, the law that bars its destruction will have to change.

“Guns are no longer just guns after they’ve been used to harm your loved one, to take their life,” Erfle said. “It becomes a symbol of that violence. It’s so much more than a weapon at this point.”

The lawsuit aside, repealing the 2012 law is now her “biggest goal,” she said: “It just doesn’t make sense.” Since going public with her lawsuit, she’s received some high-profile and bipartisan support.

At a press conference last month, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell — a Republican — said she’d “stand by side” with Erfle “to get the law changed.” Erfle said she’d take Mitchell up on that offer to put pressure on the legislature to change that law. Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, who attempted to block the sale of weapons used in crimes when she served on the Phoenix City Council, also said she’d like to join Erfle’s fight. “We should be taking any and all measures to curb gun violence,” Ansari told New Times. Erfle said she’s received similar support for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, which is run by Democrat Kris Mayes.

None of those officials has a vote, though. Changing the law will require convincing state legislators.

Repeal chances

New Times reached out to several state lawmakers — including two of the bill’s original sponsors, state Sens. J.D. Mesnard and David Gowan — but most declined to comment. One exception was Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who now serves as the majority leader in the Arizona Senate. Kavanagh was one of the bill’s original sponsors.

Kavanagh said the 2012 bill aimed to prevent municipalities from destroying “workable” guns they “could have sold to relieve the expense burden on taxpayers,” he said in an interview this week. He specifically pointed to the Tucson Police Department as one that was destroying weapons because “they’re anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment.” The 2012 bill, which was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and became law a year later, requires agencies to sell the firearms “to any business that is authorized to receive and dispose of the firearm.” (In that context, “dispose of” does not necessarily mean destroy.)

The law was first in a series of bills that aimed to eliminate the destruction of guns, which became more popular through police-run gun buy-back programs. Instead of destroying the guns police collected, agencies were instead required to sell them, which basically negated the point of any buy-back programs in the first place.

“We said, ‘Hey, this is money. You’re burning money,’” Kavanagh said. “It hurts the taxpayers. So sell it like everybody else.”

At the time, the legislation was passed with little noise or controversy, as it strengthened an existing state law mandating the sale of confiscated weapons. As it stands, there are no exceptions for guns that are used in homicides. Kavanagh said Erfle’s story is a “unique situation” that “never came up” when the law was passed, though he acknowledges that the law should take it into account.

“Had this been known when the law was written, I’m sure that they would have been an exception for guns that are used in homicides,” he said. “I have no doubt in that.” 

Though Erfle is pushing to strike the law from the books, Kavanagh said he does not support a full repeal of the law, which he claimed is “not doable.” But amending the law to account for situations like Erfle’s is more realistic. Kavanagh told New Times he’d have to talk to his colleagues about that change, but he suspects it’d find support because selling the weapons is “highly insensitive” to families of homicide victims.

“Guns that were used to kill people should be allowed to be destroyed,” Kavanagh said.

The earliest that effort can meaningfully begin is January, when the next legislative session is set to begin. Any change to the law must survive multiple committees in both the Arizona Senate and the Arizona House of Representatives before being passed by both bodies and sent to Gov. Katie Hobbs for signature. Handicapping its chances is difficult — other popular bills, like a 2024 measure to criminalize lying about military service for material gain, faced a rough road to passage.

Republicans control both legislative chambers, and at least one other GOP member is open to changing the law. First-term state Rep. James Taylor, who serves on the House’s public safety committee, told New Times in an email that while he’s not in favor of a full repeal, he “would be amenable to debate an amendment that allows victims to request destruction of a firearm.”

For Erfle, that would be a start.

“If the law is changed, if it’s repealed, then there’s no need for this lawsuit,” she said. “There is no policy about informing victims about when these guns go to auction. I want to be notified.”