That recently changed when the city rejected the Timberline advertisement, citing a depiction of “violence.”
In reality, the scene displayed was of satisfied customers enjoying quality instruction by a professional on the gun range. Hardly an image of violence and destruction.
Timberline owner Rob Wilson is also a member of the Arizona Citizens Defense League. When he attempted to appeal the surprising decision, he discovered the city government does not have an appeals process to follow.
To make his dilemma even more difficult, city leaders are currently proposing a new advertising policy directed specifically at his industry. It bans “advertising that promotes, solicits, depicts or markets the sale, use, rental, distribution or availability of firearms, ammunition or related goods or services.”
It is common knowledge that a municipality may regulate the size and location of signage along roadways. That is a far cry from unilaterally stripping away the right to advertise based on content that is protected by the Constitution.
Arizona law also addresses this situation. The state prohibits local governments from banning advertising for a legal business unless it can be shown that the business poses a threat to public health and safety.
Clearly, the professional firearms training shown in the Timberline display did not threaten anyone.
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld First Amendment protections of commercial speech. Cities have tried and failed to suppress viewpoints they disagreed with in advertising only to see courts reject their actions.
Owner Rob Wilson and Timberline have a compelling case to pursue if that recourse is sought. Elected officials are not the arbiters of who may conduct business and how that business is advertised. Particularly when that enterprise is protected by the Second Amendment.
