Trending
Flagstaff, Arizona, like many communities, sells advertising at a public facility -- its airport.
The municipality is considering abandoning the extra source of revenue, however, because Rob Wilson, owner of Timberline Firearms and Training, wants to advertise his gun shop on the airport's placards, as he has done before.
Flagstaff, as reported by Reason magazine's J.D. Tuccille, wants to reject the advertising. It initially tried to cite a new policy on depicting guns -- which Flagstaff officials had not actually cast votes on yet.
"It quickly became clear that Flagstaff's city government didn't want Wilson's business, or gun-related businesses in general, advertising at its facilities and was scrambling to come up with a justification," Tuccille reports.
That, reluctance, however, runs contrary to the First Amendment and to court decisions regarding exactly this type of situation. If a public entity allows advertising on public property, it must strive to be neutral and to avoid attempts to police the content of the advertising in a biased manner.
"Government agencies are limited in their ability to pick who can and who can't speak on public property," Tuccille notes.
And so Flagstaff is assessing whether to abandon almost all advertising at the airport.
The implications of Flagstaff's attempts to disfavor a gun shop, selling guns in full compliance with the laws, in regards to free speech and the First Amendment are, of course, exceedingly important in their own right.
But we must also note that these developments reflect poorly on our nation's debates about the Second Amendment as well.
Public officials in a suburb in what is generally considered either a conservative or moderate state -- certainly at the very least not a hotbed of progressive disdain for the Second Amendment -- are clearly willing to sacrifice a revenue stream for public coffers rather than allow a gun shop the same amenities other businesses enjoy. Such a stance only justifies skepticism that critics of the right to keep and bear arms will accept anything less than erosion of our Bill of Rights. After all, the public officials in question would rather walk away from a mutually beneficial arrangement for the public treasury and for area businesses than accept the validity that people have a long-standing, engrained right to keep, bear and shop for arms.
The public servants of Flagstaff -- and public servants everywhere -- need to accept that gun owners and Americans who value the Second Amendment are as entitled to equal treatment before the law and by their government's officials as anyone.
Public officials further should recognize that concerns about invasive government overreach and a belief, rooted in history, that private gun ownership is one bulwark against that invasiveness and overreach, are only strengthened when a community like Flagstaff attempts to categorize gun owners and the retailers as second-class citizens -- and then surrenders the public interest rather than concede their hostility is wrong.