Sedona’s ban on firearms in public spaces has put the city squarely in the crosshairs of the state legislature.

On Oct. 9, Arizona Rep. Quang Nguyen [R-District 1], who represents Sedona and the Verde Valley, notified the Sedona City Council that Sedona City Code 12.30.090, regarding the carrying of firearms in certain public places, appears to violate state law.

Chapter 12.30.090(A) of city code currently states that “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. §13-3112 and peace officers on official duty are exempt.”

Paragraph B of that code section reiterates that “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.”

City Attorney Kurt Christianson said that the prohibition “was adopted into the 2006 code as part of Ordinance 2009-10 and the attached Resolution 2009-32 creating a new Chapter 15 and has remained the same since that time.”

The Arizona legislature legalized the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit in 2010. Arizona Revised Statutes §13-3108(A) provides that “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.”

ARS §13-3108(G) allows local jurisdictions to limit or prohibit “the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves” under stated conditions, although not in scenarios where an individual is discharging a firearm in self-defense, but does not provide for local jurisdictions to regulate the carrying of firearms in parks.

Per ARS §13-3102(A)(1)(a), (B)(3) and (C)(4), state law preempts local prohibition of both the open carrying of weapons and the carrying of concealed 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,” Nguyen wrote. “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.”

Nguyen requested that the city conduct a legal analysis of the ordinance’s validity and inform him subsequently of “any next steps you intend to take to ensure that ordinance 12.30.090 complies with state law.”

“I was informed of the passing of the ordinance through the Arizona Citizens Defense League,” Nguyen said on Oct. 15. “So far, I have not received comments from [Sedona] Mayor [Scott] Jablow or members of the city council.”

“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,” Christianson said on Oct. 16.

The proposed updated language for paragraph A of Chapter 12.30.090 now 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.”

The new language thereby eliminates firearms from the restriction, as ARS §13-3101 defines a firearm as a “weapon that will expel, is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

The original language of paragraph B of the code section is now proposed for deletion, to be replaced with a new provision making it generally unlawful throughout the city to discharge a firearm except in self-defense against attack by a person or animal.