From a blog I suscribe to:
Smoldering in Arizona:
Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen is questioning the legality of a firearms ordinance in the City of Sedona. Nguyen, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, sent a letter sent last week to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and members of the City Council, Representative Nguyen questioned the validity and enforceability of Sedona Ordinance 12.30.090, which imposes restrictions on the carrying and discharge of firearms in certain public areas. Nguyen noted that the ordinance may conflict with existing Arizona law, specifically Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108, which preempts cities from enacting their own regulations related to the possession, carrying, and discharge of firearms.
While state law allows cities to limit or prohibit the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves under specific conditions, Representative Nguyen pointed out that Ordinance 12.30.090 regulates areas beyond parks and preserves, using vague terms such as “trails” and “open space areas,” which are not clearly defined and may extend beyond what state law permits. Additionally, while the ordinance exempts individuals with a CCW permit, Arizona law since 2010 has allowed individuals who can legally carry a weapon openly to also carry it concealed without a permit, subject to certain restrictions. “I urge the City of Sedona to review Ordinance 12.30.090 to ensure it complies with Arizona law,” said Representative Nguyen. “It’s important that local ordinances do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of Arizonans or conflict with state statutes.”
Nguyen has requested that the City of Sedona conduct a legal analysis of the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090 and provide its findings to him as soon as possible. (A few years prior to constitutional carry, an AzCDL member who believes that open carry serves an educational purpose was stopped by a Tucson PD officer for carrying openly in a Tucson park. He informed the officer that he was exempt from the city ban on park carry because he had a CWP. The officer's response was to tell him to cover his gun, to which he replied that the ordinance [and, for that matter, state law] did not require that. When the officer would not back down, he asked the officer to call for a supervisor to bring a copy of the ordinance to the scene. When the supervisor arrived and read the ordinance, he ended up agreeing that the only legal requirement was to possess the CWP.
It would have made sense to address such exemptions for permit holders after the enactment of constitutional carry but I was once told that it is difficult to get legislators to carry such clean-up bills until they see an inappropriate prosecution. Now Arizona gunners face the prospect that the loss of the razor-thin GOP majority in each chamber of the legislature will result in the repeal of constitutional carry.)
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2024/10/15/state-representative-questions-legality-of-sedona-firearms-ordinance/
--
Smoldering in Arizona:
Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen is questioning the legality of a firearms ordinance in the City of Sedona. Nguyen, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, sent a letter sent last week to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and members of the City Council, Representative Nguyen questioned the validity and enforceability of Sedona Ordinance 12.30.090, which imposes restrictions on the carrying and discharge of firearms in certain public areas. Nguyen noted that the ordinance may conflict with existing Arizona law, specifically Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108, which preempts cities from enacting their own regulations related to the possession, carrying, and discharge of firearms.
While state law allows cities to limit or prohibit the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves under specific conditions, Representative Nguyen pointed out that Ordinance 12.30.090 regulates areas beyond parks and preserves, using vague terms such as “trails” and “open space areas,” which are not clearly defined and may extend beyond what state law permits. Additionally, while the ordinance exempts individuals with a CCW permit, Arizona law since 2010 has allowed individuals who can legally carry a weapon openly to also carry it concealed without a permit, subject to certain restrictions. “I urge the City of Sedona to review Ordinance 12.30.090 to ensure it complies with Arizona law,” said Representative Nguyen. “It’s important that local ordinances do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of Arizonans or conflict with state statutes.”
Nguyen has requested that the City of Sedona conduct a legal analysis of the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090 and provide its findings to him as soon as possible. (A few years prior to constitutional carry, an AzCDL member who believes that open carry serves an educational purpose was stopped by a Tucson PD officer for carrying openly in a Tucson park. He informed the officer that he was exempt from the city ban on park carry because he had a CWP. The officer's response was to tell him to cover his gun, to which he replied that the ordinance [and, for that matter, state law] did not require that. When the officer would not back down, he asked the officer to call for a supervisor to bring a copy of the ordinance to the scene. When the supervisor arrived and read the ordinance, he ended up agreeing that the only legal requirement was to possess the CWP.
It would have made sense to address such exemptions for permit holders after the enactment of constitutional carry but I was once told that it is difficult to get legislators to carry such clean-up bills until they see an inappropriate prosecution. Now Arizona gunners face the prospect that the loss of the razor-thin GOP majority in each chamber of the legislature will result in the repeal of constitutional carry.)
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2024/10/15/state-representative-questions-legality-of-sedona-firearms-ordinance/
--
