Timberline Firearms and Training in Flagstaff has bought advertising at the Flagstaff Airport for years. Visitors and locals alike were made aware of the store and the indoor shooting range facility when they were in the baggage claim area.
This year is different, however.
Recently, the city denied the ad placement on the grounds that it “depicts violence.” It actually shows happy customers holding firearms and an instructor working with a student at their indoor range.
Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) member and Timberline owner Rob Wilson attempted to appeal the decision, but it turns out the city doesn’t even have an appeal procedure! Worse yet, the city is now proposing a new advertising policy that prohibits;
“Advertising that promotes, solicits, depicts, or markets the sale, use, rental, distribution, or availability of firearms, ammunition, or related goods or services.”
Wilson is not taking this lying down. He will be attending the council meeting to express his views on the subject.
Arizona Citizens Defense League has reviewed the proposed changes to advertising policy and found they violate a number of provisions of state law.
In general, an Arizona municipality cannot ban advertising for a legal business, with some exceptions. They can regulate the size, lighting, and spacing of outdoor advertising signs along highways and roads under certain conditions, but this does not allow them to ban advertising completely. They also cannot require pre-approval for advertising content, except in the case of insurance administrators. State law also stipulates that municipalities cannot ban advertising for a legal business unless they can show it constitutes a threat to public health and safety. Timberline poses a threat to no one.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the 1st Amendment protects commercial speech, that public transit systems creating public forums cannot exclude speakers based on viewpoint, and that categorical bans on advertising certain products or services are unlikely to survive judicial review.
It’s also quite likely that the proposed changes violate the state’s firearms preemption statute.
You may remember that Alan Korwin and TrainMeAZ faced a similar situation in 2013 when the City of Phoenix rejected firearms training ads at city bus stops. Ultimately, Korwin sued the city and won in court (KORWIN v. CITY OF PHOENIX; 1 CA-CV 12-0878). We hope it doesn’t come to that, but the city of Flagstaff could learn something from the case!
Arizona Citizens Defense League believes that Flagstaff’s attempt to prohibit firearm advertising is unconstitutional and strongly opposes the proposed changes.
About Arizona Citizens Defense League:
Arizona Citizens Defense League believes that the emphasis of gun laws should be on criminal misuse and that law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry firearms unaffected by unnecessary laws or regulations. AzCDL was founded by a group of local activists who recognized that a sustained, coordinated, statewide effort was critical to protecting and expanding the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As a like-minded coalition of activists, the AzCDL founders were instrumental in the successful passage of the first major improvement to Arizona’s CCW (concealed carry) laws since they were instituted in 1994. Visit: www.azcdl.org
This phenomenon can be attributed to the insidious nature of “Creeping Gradualism!”
So a lawful business enterprise is prohibited from advertising a lawful activity? Seems like a perfect example of a violation of the First Amendment.
Is that part of the country just going weird? (see recent events in New Mexico)
Of course the ad depicts violence. To the anti-rights crowd “gun” and “violence” are inseparable. Violence of any type is “gun violence,” even if attacker is a bear and victim is unarmed. Any time they see a gun or even hear the word – they imagine violence. Thus to them a peaceful image such as shown above is “VIOLENCE”…. how dare rational people see it as a friendly exchange of information between non-violent people.
Reality has nothing to do with it. They live in their heads utterly removed from logic, evidence, and rational thought.
Flagstaff has all the crazies in the state. Great bars and loose women.
a First Amendment violation for sure and probably a Fourteenth Amendment also, the equal protection clause. if they allow anyone else to advertise there they cannot ban someone for an arbitrary reason.
they might use as a defense, “look at our next door neighbor, at least we are not restricting your Second Amendment like they are.”
make they pay, although it is the taxpayers footing the bill and not the tyrants that attempt to force their edicts upon others.
Violating a state law or any law is of No Consequence in the minds of Liberal/Progressive democrats. If it meets the emotional needs of their acolytes.