Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos was stopped by TSA agents at Tucson International Airport after a loaded, undeclared firearm turned up in his carry-on bag, according to an incident report obtained by Fox News Digital. The November 2024 incident did not result in charges, a fact that has only deepened public anger toward the embattled Arizona lawman now facing questions about his handling of the Nancy Guthrie disappearance.
The airport episode is one thread in a widening tangle of controversies around Nanos. An independent administrative investigation found that “the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Sheriff Nanos used his authority and department resources for political gain.” The Pima County Board of Supervisors has referred him to the state attorney general and moved unanimously to have outside counsel draft questions for him. And more than two months after 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie vanished from her Tucson home, no suspects have been publicly identified.
For residents of Pima County, the picture is straightforward: the man responsible for public safety appears unable to follow the rules he enforces on everyone else, and the political establishment has been slow to hold him accountable.
The report, dated November 6, 2024, describes what happened at Lane 1 of Tucson International Airport’s B Concourse. A TSA X-ray technician spotted a weapon in the sheriff’s bag and flagged an officer. The first responding officer recused himself, citing an apparent conflict of interest. A second officer brought Nanos to a private screening room and asked where in his bag the gun was located.
Nanos told the officer it was in a zippered pocket. When the officer removed the firearm, he found five rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber, a fully loaded weapon, ready to fire, sitting in a carry-on bag at an airport security checkpoint.
The report noted that “the firearm was in a hard plastic holster” and “was not artfully or purposely concealed.” The officer read Nanos his Miranda rights and notified his superiors, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI. Nanos was then “escorted off the concourse to place his firearm in his vehicle, and he was rebooked to fly out at a later time.”
No charges followed.
That outcome is precisely what infuriates critics. Cory Stephens, a longtime Tucson resident and president of the Conservative Coalition of America, raised the incident at a Pima County Board of Supervisors public meeting on November 12, 2024. As the New York Post reported, Stephens told Fox News Digital she found the episode alarming.
Stephens put the double standard bluntly:
“If a private citizen had encountered that at the airport, the consequences would have been greater.”
She added:
“As a law enforcement officer, he should know the TSA rules, how to declare a weapon, secure it and follow the same rules as everyone else.”
Retired FBI agent and Fox News contributor James Gagliano echoed the point, describing standard protocol for law enforcement officers traveling armed. “You declare yourself as a law enforcement officer ahead of time,” Gagliano said. The process exists for a reason. It is not optional. And a county sheriff, of all people, should know it cold.
Nanos’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the airport incident.
The airport firearm episode does not exist in isolation. It sits alongside findings from an independent investigation conducted by Northstar Employment & Legal Solutions, which examined allegations of bullying and abuse of power against Nanos.
The investigation cleared Nanos of the bullying allegations. But it reached a far more damaging conclusion on a separate front: the preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Nanos used his authority and department resources for political gain. The review also found certain conduct “inconsistent with the listed policies,” though it noted Nanos, as an elected official, is not technically subject to those policies.
That distinction matters. It means the policies designed to prevent exactly this kind of conduct have no teeth when the person violating them holds elected office. The system, in effect, shrugs.
A spokesperson for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said Nanos has been made aware of the investigation’s results. The spokesperson acknowledged that “the findings do not support allegations of bullying but note additional concerns.” The department declined to comment further, citing a pending civil lawsuit.
The investigation stemmed in part from a retaliation complaint filed by former PCSD Lieutenant Heather Lappin, who ran against Nanos in a close 2024 race. County officials stated that Lappin was suspended and prevented from actively campaigning. Lappin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors, which holds a 4-1 Democrat majority, referred Nanos to the state attorney general last year for investigation into whether he behaved inappropriately during the campaign. And last week, the board moved unanimously to have outside counsel draft proposed questions for Nanos, with plans to bring him before the panel to answer questions about his workplace history and other concerns.
Nanos declined to comment on the board’s decision.
All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a missing-person case that has drawn national attention. Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of “Today” co-host Savannah Guthrie, has been missing from her Tucson home since January 31, 2026. She is believed to have been abducted in the early hours of February 1.
More than two months later, the search remains unsolved. No suspects have been publicly identified. A combined reward of more than $1.2 million has been offered for information leading to an arrest or Guthrie’s recovery.
Nanos gave a public update on the investigation on February 5, 2026. Pima County deputies were seen examining a flyer taped to the mailbox at Guthrie’s home on February 23. On February 13, sheriff’s deputies were involved in a law enforcement operation at the intersection of Camino de Michael and East Orange Grove Road in Tucson, approximately two miles from Guthrie’s home.
The sheriff was not accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Guthrie investigation during the board meeting. But the case has intensified scrutiny of his office at a time when his credibility is already under pressure from multiple directions.
Stephens, who unsuccessfully ran for a seat on the board as a Republican in 2024, has called on Nanos to step down. Her argument goes beyond the airport incident or any single controversy:
“We as citizens want answers. The safety of our community is at stake.”
She told Fox News Digital that voters were denied the information they needed before putting Nanos in office:
“We have information that we need as an electorate to know who we’re voting into office. We need all the information that we could possibly have to put the right people into office.”
And she offered a blunt summary: “He was not properly vetted.”
The open questions are substantial. Why were no charges filed after a loaded, undeclared firearm was found in the sheriff’s carry-on? What specific questions does the board plan to ask Nanos? What are the allegations in the pending civil lawsuit the department cited in declining further comment? And what, exactly, is the Pima County Sheriff’s Department doing to find Nancy Guthrie?
The facts here are not complicated. A sheriff brought a loaded gun, six rounds, one in the chamber, through an airport security checkpoint without declaring it. An independent investigation found evidence he used his office for political gain. An 84-year-old woman vanished from her home in his jurisdiction, and two months later, there are no public suspects and no resolution.
The board of supervisors, to its credit, has begun asking questions. But a Democrat-majority board referring a sheriff to the attorney general and drafting questions through outside counsel is a slow, bureaucratic response to a situation that calls for direct accountability.
The people of Pima County deserve a sheriff who follows the same rules he enforces. Right now, the evidence suggests they don’t have one.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.