Guests - Betsy Smith, Christina Bobb, Joel Strabala
The Reality of Rising Crime and Failed Gun Control Policies
The conversation around gun control has reached a fever pitch in Tucson, with Attorney General Adelphia Grijalva, representatives from the Gabby Giffords Foundation, and other political figures pushing for increased restrictions on firearms. Their argument? That rising crime rates necessitate taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.
This approach fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between legal gun ownership and crime reduction. For decades, research has consistently shown that when there is a legally armed citizenry, crime rates actually decrease. Dr. John Lott's seminal work "More Guns Less Crime" documents this statistical reality across the United States.
Tucson serves as a prime example of this principle in action. When compared to heavily gun-controlled cities like Chicago, Washington D.C., Portland, Minneapolis, and other jurisdictions with strict firearm restrictions, Arizona's crime rates tell a different story. The reason is straightforward: criminals in Arizona know they're significantly more likely to encounter an armed victim willing to defend themselves.
The National Police Association, representing boots-on-the-ground police officers, strongly supports an armed and trained citizenry. This isn't theoretical—it's practical law enforcement recognizing that responsible gun ownership creates a deterrent effect that makes communities safer.
However, Arizona's constitutional carry laws and strong Second Amendment protections stand in stark contrast to the current reality on Tucson's streets. Citizens can't feel safe waiting for a bus or riding public transportation without worrying about becoming victims of crime. This paradox reveals the real issue: the problem isn't too many guns, it's too few consequences for criminal behavior.
The True Causes of Rising Crime
The focus on "gun violence" as a distinct category misses the broader picture of violence in our communities. We're dealing with machete attacks, vehicle assaults, and hand-to-hand violence alongside gun crimes. The weapon isn't the root cause—the lack of accountability is.
Law enforcement agencies across the country are facing unprecedented challenges. Recent incidents underscore this crisis: three officers were shot in an ambush attack in Tremonton, Utah—a town of only 10,000 people with just 12 police officers. Two died responding to what began as a domestic dispute. In Maui, another officer was killed on August 16th in a similar situation.
These tragedies occur against a backdrop of chronic understaffing and lack of support for law enforcement. When you examine crime statistics in places like Oro Valley, Marana, and Sahuarita compared to unincorporated Pima County, the difference is stark. Communities that adequately staff and support their police departments see dramatically different outcomes.
The solution isn't complicated: more police officers on the streets, consistent prosecution of crimes, and meaningful sentences for convicted criminals. This three-pronged approach worked in the 1990s to reduce crime, and it's working again in Washington D.C. under new federal intervention.
Federal Solutions and Local Resistance
Washington D.C. provides a compelling case study in rapid crime reduction. The federal government temporarily federalized the police department and brought in federal prosecutor Janine Pirro, who actually prosecutes criminals rather than releasing them. Within a week, violent crime dropped dramatically.
This same model could work in Tucson if local leadership would cooperate with federal partners. Pima County already hosts numerous federal law enforcement agencies—we're in the largest Border Patrol sector in the country, with FBI, DEA, and other federal agents already working here. These agents live in our community and understand our challenges.
The key advantage of federal involvement is that criminals arrested by federal agents can be charged with federal crimes, prosecuted by federal prosecutors, and sentenced under federal guidelines. This would bypass the current local prosecution system that has proven reluctant to hold criminals accountable.
Unfortunately, current local leadership appears more interested in political positioning than public safety. They continue to push the same failed solutions while crime statistics worsen and officer morale plummets.
A Conversation with National Police Association Spokesperson Betsy Brantner Smith
Betsy Brantner Smith, spokesperson for the National Police Association and former police officer, brings decades of law enforcement experience to the discussion of crime and public safety. Having just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, she immediately dove into the pressing issues facing law enforcement nationwide.
"What we find is that when there is an armed, legally armed citizenry, there is less crime," Smith explained. "Bad guys know here in Arizona that you're way more likely to encounter a crime victim who is carrying a firearm."
Her organization represents rank-and-file police officers who support the Second Amendment and prefer working in communities where responsible citizens can defend themselves. This creates a natural partnership between law enforcement and lawful gun owners that benefits everyone except criminals.
The National Police Association has been particularly busy lately due to the alarming increase in attacks on law enforcement officers. "Yesterday we had three officers shot in an ambush attack in northern Utah," Smith reported. "In a town of about 10,000 people, it's Tremonton Garland police department. They only have about 12 police officers. Three of them were shot. Two dead."
These attacks are occurring during a time when law enforcement continues to face severe staffing shortages. The combination of increased danger and decreased support has created a crisis in public safety that extends far beyond any single community.
The Staffing Crisis and Its Consequences
The relationship between adequate police staffing and crime rates couldn't be clearer. "If everybody wants to know why crime is on the rise here in Tucson and here in Pima County, Arizona, it's not because there's too many guns. It's because criminals aren't being punished," Smith stated plainly.
The problems are systemic: prosecutors who don't prosecute, police departments operating with dangerous staffing shortages, and sheriff's departments similarly understaffed. The contrast with nearby communities is telling—Oro Valley's experience demonstrates what happens when a community properly supports its police force.
"They were down one to two officers—enviable numbers compared to larger departments—but they weren't treating those officers well because of disconnect between the city manager, city council, and information flow," Brantner-Smith observed. "But once everyone figured it out, the city council did the right thing and voted for pay raises and benefits."
For Tucson police officers, the situation is far more challenging. They work in an environment where they receive little support from city leadership, where the chief is hired by officials who consistently underfund the department, and where they face increasing danger with decreasing resources.
Political Theater vs. Real Solutions
The recent press conference featuring various officials calling for gun control represents political theater rather than serious policy discussion. "This was political theater last night. This was to boost Adelphia Grijalva's congressional campaign. To feed meat to the base. No guns, no guns, no guns," was the assessment of the event's true purpose.
Meanwhile, the real work of fighting crime goes unrecognized. Current federal crime-fighting initiatives have drawn protests from Democrats who seem to prefer the status quo to effective law enforcement. The irony is palpable: elected officials complaining about successful crime reduction efforts.
The success in Washington D.C. provides a roadmap, but it requires local cooperation that seems unlikely given current political dynamics. "That's exactly what we could do here in Tucson if we wanted to cooperate with our federal partners," Brantner-Smith noted. "But instead, the woman who's running for CD7, Adelphia Grijalva, she wants to take your guns away."
Beyond the Political Noise
The fundamental challenge facing Tucson goes beyond any single election or policy debate. It's about whether local leadership will prioritize public safety over political positioning, whether they'll support law enforcement instead of undermining it, and whether they'll focus on actual crime reduction rather than symbolic gestures.
Evidence-based solutions exist and have proven successful elsewhere. The three-part formula—more officers, consistent prosecution, and meaningful sentences—works when implemented properly. Federal partnership programs have decades of successful track record and could be deployed immediately if local officials requested assistance.
The question isn't whether effective crime-fighting strategies exist. The question is whether local leadership has the political will to implement them, even if it means acknowledging that their previous approaches have failed.
Moving Forward with Practical Solutions
Real crime reduction requires abandoning failed ideological approaches in favor of proven strategies. This means supporting law enforcement with adequate funding and staffing, ensuring that arrested criminals face meaningful consequences, and recognizing that law-abiding citizens have both the right and capability to defend themselves.
The current focus on restricting legal gun ownership while ignoring the prosecution and sentencing failures that allow criminals to operate with impunity represents exactly the wrong approach. It penalizes the law-abiding while enabling the lawless.
Communities across Arizona and the nation are watching to see whether Tucson will choose effective crime-fighting over political correctness, whether it will support its police officers or continue to hamstring them, and whether it will work with federal partners or maintain counterproductive isolation.
The tools for success exist. The question is whether local leadership will use them.
Inside the Mar-a-Lago Raid: A Conversation with Christina Bobb
Christina Bobb brings a unique perspective to discussions of law enforcement and justice, having experienced firsthand the weaponization of federal agencies during the Mar-a-Lago raid. As a University of Arizona graduate, former Marine Corps defense counsel, and attorney specializing in national security law, Bobb witnessed the intersection of politics and prosecutorial power in ways that illuminate broader concerns about justice in America.
Her new book "Defiant: Inside the Mar-a-Lago Raid and the Left's Ongoing Lawfare" provides an insider's account of events that she believes represent a dangerous precedent for American democracy. As President Trump's custodian of records during the period leading up to and including the raid, Bobb had access to conversations, documents, and interactions that the media never reported accurately.
"The story that the media has told is just not true. It just does not give you a good picture of what actually happened," Bobb explained. Her role as both an attorney and the designated custodian of records meant she kept detailed notes and preserved everything, creating a contemporaneous record of events as they unfolded.
The Anatomy of Prosecutorial Overreach
Bobb's experience extends far beyond the Mar-a-Lago raid itself. She's been pulled into multiple investigations related to the 2020 election and her work with Rudy Giuliani, facing prosecution in Arizona under Attorney General Kris Mayes, investigations by the California bar, and visits from U.S. Marshals to her home.
"Everything, except for the New York cases, everything else that they were throwing at Donald Trump, I got pulled into because of my prior role with the 2020 election and my role being at Mar-a-Lago," she recounted. This pattern suggests a coordinated effort to target not just political opponents but their legal representatives and associates.
The Arizona prosecution particularly illustrates how prosecutorial discretion can become prosecutorial abuse. "Chris Mayes is still trying to throw me in prison. She really is trying to prosecute me for my reporting," Bobb noted. "All of the evidence that she has cited against me—they're my media hits. I'm reporting on the stolen election."
This represents a chilling development: criminal prosecution for journalism and legal representation. The fact that the indictment has been thrown out by the court but the case remains open demonstrates how prosecutorial power can be used to harass and intimidate even without successful convictions.
The Federal Investigation's True Nature
According to Bobb's account, the Mar-a-Lago investigation was fundamentally different from what the public was told. Originally conceived as a case to be prosecuted in Washington D.C.—similar to Hillary Clinton's email situation—investigators hoped to find something, anything, that could justify their actions.
"This was supposed to be a case in Washington, D.C. They were trying to prosecute him in Washington, D.C. The original grand jury and the whole investigation was in Washington, D.C.," Bobb revealed. Despite the fact that everything occurred in Florida—meetings, document signings, legal consultations—she was compelled to testify in Washington D.C.
The investigation's geographic manipulation reveals its political nature. "They were trying to bring this as like a Hillary Clinton email scandal type case. And they just didn't have the facts for it. And they thought, oh, surely if we raid Mar-a-Lago, we'll find something we can use."
When that strategy failed to produce the desired evidence, investigators shifted to an obstruction of justice case in Florida—their backup plan when the original fishing expedition came up empty.
The Role of Judicial Compromise
Perhaps most troubling in Bobb's account is the description of how the search warrant was obtained. "They absolutely did not have probable cause. They lied to the court to get the warrant in the first place. They went to a judge who just weeks prior had recused himself because he said he was unable to be impartial in a prior Trump case."
This judge, having already declared his inability to be impartial in Trump-related matters, then issued the warrant for the unprecedented raid on a former president's residence. The contradiction highlights how institutional safeguards can be circumvented when political motivations override legal principles.
Lessons for Local Law Enforcement
Bobb's experience provides important context for local discussions about law enforcement and prosecutorial accountability. Her case demonstrates how easily the justice system can be weaponized when political considerations override legal standards.
"There's two ways to restore justice," Bobb explained. "The first way is the people who abused the process in the first place could stop. They could say, you know what? We realized we went too far. This was too much. Let's meet in the middle. They're not doing that. The left is doubling down."
Instead of acknowledging overreach, prosecutors continue pursuing cases they know lack merit. "They're still prosecuting about 60 of us. Myself included, about 15 to 20 people in Arizona. And then you still have Georgia. Fanny Willis hasn't gone away."
This pattern of continued prosecution despite weak cases suggests that the process itself has become the punishment—a way to drain resources, create stress, and deter others from challenging official narratives.
The Path Forward
Bobb's hope lies in the appointments of Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Kash Patel to key Justice Department positions. "If they're not showing any sign of remorse, then the only way to stop them is to prosecute them and to say, okay, if you're going to abuse our system, if you're going to abuse our process, then we're going to prosecute you."
Her experience as a Marine Corps defense counsel gives her particular insight into how justice should function. Military justice, for all its flaws, operates under clear rules and procedures that civilian prosecutions have apparently abandoned in high-profile political cases.
The broader implications extend to local communities like Tucson, where prosecutorial discretion shapes public safety outcomes. If federal prosecutors can ignore legal standards for political purposes, what confidence can citizens have in local prosecutors following the law?
Election Integrity and Local Democracy
Bobb's work on election integrity connects directly to local concerns about democratic legitimacy. Her reporting on mail-in ballot irregularities, ballot harvesting, and other issues raises questions about whether elections truly reflect voter preferences.
"They can't win without mail-in ballots. That's why Democrats are so pro mail-in ballots. They just can't win without them," she observed. This assessment, based on her investigation of 2020 election irregularities, suggests that certain voting methods enable outcomes that might not occur under more traditional election security measures.
The implications for local elections are significant. If state and federal elections can be manipulated through procedural changes and lax oversight, local elections face similar vulnerabilities. The integrity of democracy depends on confidence that votes are accurately counted and that only eligible citizens participate.
The Continuing Fight
Despite facing multiple prosecutions and investigations, Bobb continues her work as a journalist and attorney. Her persistence in the face of government pressure demonstrates the importance of independent voices willing to challenge official narratives, even at personal cost.
"My book comes out September 9th, and it's available for pre-order. President Trump did the forward, so there's a fun little message from him in there," she noted. The former president's willingness to write the forward despite his own legal challenges shows continued confidence in Bobb's account of events.
Her story serves as both warning and inspiration for others facing government overreach. It demonstrates how quickly constitutional protections can erode when political motivations override legal standards, but also shows that resistance is possible when individuals refuse to be intimidated.
Implications for Local Justice
The lessons from Bobb's experience apply directly to local justice issues in Tucson and Pima County. When prosecutors can ignore legal standards for political purposes at the federal level, similar problems inevitably emerge at local levels. The same mentality that enables federal overreach enables local prosecutorial failures.
Citizens must demand the same standards for local prosecutors that they expect from federal ones: adherence to law, equal treatment regardless of politics, and accountability for misconduct. The alternative is a system where justice depends on political alignment rather than legal merit.
This connects directly to current concerns about crime prosecution in Tucson. If prosecutors won't pursue criminals consistently while pursuing political opponents aggressively, the justice system loses legitimacy and public safety suffers.
Election Updates and Democratic Process
The democratic process in Tucson continues to face challenges as the Ward 3 city council race between Kevin Dahl and Sadie Shaw heads to recount after a 19-vote margin triggered automatic recount procedures. This extraordinarily close race—well within the half-percent threshold requiring recounts—demonstrates both the importance of every vote and the ongoing competitive nature of local politics.
Joel Strabala, LD 17 chair and longtime election observer, has been monitoring the process closely. His participation in the logic and accuracy testing of voting machines provides crucial oversight that helps ensure election integrity. "Before every election, the elections department here in Pima County runs what's called a logic and accuracy test to verify that their machines can read the ballot specific to the election," Strabala explained.
This testing process allows both major political parties to submit test ballots with various scenarios—overvotes, blank ballots, write-ins, and other "stupid voter tricks"—to ensure machines correctly tabulate different marking patterns. The fact that both Republican and Democratic observers participate and agree on results provides confidence in the technical aspects of vote counting.
The Recount Process and Legal Challenges
The recount was temporarily halted due to an election contest being filed under Arizona Revised Statutes 16-667. According to election law, once a contest is initiated, recount proceedings must be suspended until the court resolves the challenge. This legal maneuver, likely filed by the Shaw campaign, reflects the high stakes involved in this closely contested race.
The procedural complexity highlights how Arizona's election laws provide multiple avenues for challenging results when margins are extremely narrow. While some may view this as enabling endless litigation, these procedures exist to ensure that genuine irregularities receive proper judicial review before winners are certified.
Over 300 ballots were identified as problematic during the initial count, raising questions about ballot integrity and voter education. These "bad ballots" result from various issues: improper marking, damaged ballots, or unclear voter intent. The large number suggests either systemic problems with ballot design or widespread voter confusion about proper marking procedures.
Voter Turnout and Civic Engagement
The August primary election saw disappointing 17% turnout, reflecting broader patterns of civic disengagement that plague local democracy. Low participation rates mean that small, organized groups can have disproportionate influence on outcomes, potentially skewing results away from broader community preferences.
This pattern becomes particularly concerning when examining the policy outcomes that have emerged from low-turnout elections. Fourteen years of Democratic leadership in Tucson have coincided with rising crime, deteriorating infrastructure, and declining public safety—yet voter apathy has prevented meaningful accountability.
The upcoming September 23rd special election for Congressional District 7 faces similar challenges. Many voters remain unaware that this election occurs in September rather than November, with early ballots arriving August 27th. This confusion could depress turnout further, allowing the most politically engaged (and potentially most extreme) voters to determine outcomes.
Federal vs. Local Election Administration
The contrast between federal oversight and local administration becomes apparent when examining how different jurisdictions handle election integrity. Joel Strabala's work observing ballot drop boxes and reporting irregularities demonstrates the importance of citizen engagement in maintaining election security.
"I did learn one thing today. You can vote for a candidate and you can also vote a write-in and put that same candidate's name in and that's not an overvote," Storbala noted after observing the testing process. These technical details matter when margins are narrow and every vote counts.
The need for Republican poll workers and observers reflects ongoing concerns about election administration. While Pima County pays poll workers $16-21 per hour, the real value lies in ensuring that election procedures are followed correctly and that potential irregularities are documented properly.
The SAVE Act and Citizenship Verification
The upcoming SAVE Act bus tour represents efforts to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in American elections. This common-sense principle—that citizenship should be required for voting—has somehow become controversial in contemporary politics.
The tour's stop in Tucson acknowledges that this community has experienced particular challenges with voter roll accuracy. Recent removal of approximately 250,000 ineligible voters from Maricopa County rolls demonstrates the scale of the problem, though similar cleaning has not occurred consistently in other counties.
The resistance to citizenship verification requirements reveals the political stakes involved. If elections were conducted with proper citizenship verification, cleaned voter rolls, and robust security measures, outcomes might differ significantly from current patterns.
The September 23rd Special Election
CD 7's special election features four candidates: Adelphia Grijalva (Democrat), Daniel Butteras (Republican), Eduardo Quintana (Green Party), and Richard Grayson (No Labels Party). The presence of third-party candidates could influence outcomes in ways that neither major party anticipates.
Early voting sites will be limited compared to general elections, with only about a dozen locations opening the week before election day. However, all 58 vote centers within CD 7 will operate on election day, providing ample opportunity for in-person voting.
The compressed timeline—with early ballots arriving August 27th and election day September 23rd—requires rapid voter education efforts. Many residents accustomed to November elections may miss this crucial vote entirely if outreach efforts fail to reach them effectively.
Long-term Implications
The winner of this special election will serve only until December 2026, making this a preview of longer-term political battles rather than a permanent resolution. However, the outcome will influence federal policy during crucial early months of the Trump administration.
Local elections in November will determine city council composition for the next four years. With candidates like Jail Whittenbreaker in Ward 3 and Jay Toccoff in Ward 6 representing alternatives to current failed policies, voters have clear choices between continuation and change.
The pattern is consistent: low-turnout elections enable outcomes that don't reflect broader community preferences, while high turnout generally produces more representative results. The challenge lies in motivating citizens to participate despite years of disappointment with political leadership.
Building Better Democratic Participation
Effective democracy requires both secure elections and broad participation. Citizens must engage with the electoral process not just as voters but as poll workers, observers, and informed participants who understand how their local government operates.
The technical aspects of election administration—machine testing, ballot design, signature verification—may seem mundane, but they form the foundation of democratic legitimacy. When citizens understand and participate in these processes, confidence in outcomes increases regardless of who wins.
The current crisis of confidence in elections stems partly from lack of transparency and citizen engagement. When elections are conducted by government employees with minimal public oversight, suspicions naturally arise about manipulation and fraud.
Joel Strabala's consistent presence at election processes demonstrates how citizen engagement can provide accountability. His documentation of irregularities and advocacy for proper procedures helps ensure that problems are identified and addressed rather than ignored.
The path forward requires both secure elections and broad participation. This means citizenship verification, clean voter rolls, and transparent processes, combined with civic education that encourages all eligible citizens to participate in choosing their representatives.
Only through this combination of security and participation can democracy regain the legitimacy necessary to govern effectively and represent citizens' true preferences rather than the preferences of small, organized political factions.