A Sedona ban on firearms in public spaces, which has allegedly gone unenforced for years, has been brought to the attention of Arizona State Rep. Quang Nguyen who notified the City Council earlier this month that Sedona City Code 12.30.090, addressing the carrying of firearms in certain public places, appears to violate state law.

Public records show the prohibition was adopted into code in 2006 and later amended in 2009 and 2012. The issue at hand deals specifically with 12.30.090 paragraphs A and B. 

A. It shall be unlawful to carry or discharge into any park, trail, or open space area firearms or projectile weapons or explosives of any kind, including, but not limited to, fireworks, BB guns, pellet guns, air guns, crossbows, longbows, slingshots or other device capable of causing injury to persons or animals or damage or destruction to property. Persons who possess a permit issued pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-3112 and peace officers on official duty are exempt.

B. It shall be unlawful to carry a deadly weapon into any park, trail, or open space area. A deadly weapon is defined as any item designed for lethal use and includes knives with blades longer than three and one-half inches.

Arizona’s adaptation of Constitutional Carry was established on July 29, 2010, legalizing the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit, approximately four years after the Sedona City Code 12.30.090 was originally enacted, however, 2005 Arizona Revised Statutes §13-3108(A), which predates the code, clearly prohibits such an ordinance.

“(A) political subdivision of this state shall not enact any ordinance, rule or tax relating to the transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition, gift, devise, storage, licensing, registration, discharge or use of firearms or ammunition or any firearm or ammunition components or related accessories in this state.”

While ARS §13-3108(G) allows local jurisdictions to limit or prohibit discharging of firearms in parks and preserves, excluding incidents of self-defense, it does not permit local jurisdictions to regulate the carrying of guns in those spaces. In addition, ARS §13-3102(A)(1)(a), (B)(3), and (C)(4) in the state law preempts local prohibition of open and concealed carrying of weapons.

“Consistent with Arizonans’ Second Amendment rights, Arizona law generally preempts cities and other political subdivisions of this state from enacting ordinances relating to the possession, carrying and discharge of firearms in this state… It appears that ordinance 12.30.090 is invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds what state law authorizes … Since 2010, Arizona has allowed individuals who legally carry a weapon openly to also carry a concealed weapon without a permit, subject to some restrictions. And although ARS §13-3108 allows cities to regulate the discharge of firearms in a park, the ordinance’s prohibition on carrying firearms is not consistent with ARS §13-3108. Further, the ordinance purports to regulate places other than parks and preserves i.e., trails and ‘open space areas’ — a broad, vague and undefined term,” wrote Nguyen. 

Nguyen, who was informed of the ordinance by the Arizona Citizens Defense League, requested a legal analysis be conducted by the city to ascertain the validity of the ordinance and to subsequently inform him of any steps taken to ensure 12.30.090 complies with state law.

“So far, I have not received comments from [Sedona] Mayor [Scott] Jablow or members of the city council,” according to Nguyen.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson claims that the prohibition, which he alleges has gone unenforced, was already on the way out, a seemingly dubious coincidence.

“The ordinance had not been enforced for many years and was already scheduled to be updated at the end of the year or early next year,” according to Christianson on Oct. 16.

The newly proposed language 12.30.090(A) reads, “It shall be unlawful to bring into or have in possession in any park, trail, or open space area BB guns, pellet guns, air guns, crossbows, longbows, spring guns, slingshots, or other similar weapons in which the propelling force is a spring in air,” eliminating firearms from the set of restrictions based on the definition of firearm in ARS §13-3101. 

Paragraph B of the code is proposed for deletion, apparently to be replaced with language making it generally unlawful throughout the city to discharge a firearm except in the case of self-defense.

Whether the changes were already scheduled or were proposed in response to legislative pressure, it’s good to see a step in the right direction. The issue, however, highlights the license that local, state and even the federal government feel they are entitled to when it comes to infringing on Second Amendment rights, an ongoing drain on legislation and taxpayer dollars.