Sedona’s Gun Law Overhaul Ignites Outrage Among AzCDL

The Sedona City Council convened on December 10 to address amendments to its firearms in public places ordinance, yet controversy lingered over the proposed changes.

This initiative followed a letter from Arizona Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-District 1), who highlighted that Sedona’s restrictions on firearms in “open spaces” were potentially at odds with Arizona Revised Statutes §13-3108(A), which limits local regulations on firearms.

On November 18, Nguyen, along with District 1 Rep. Selina Bliss, urged Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate the city’s ordinance compliance under ARS §41-194.01. Known as an SB1487 investigation, this inquiry stems from a 2016 law addressing local regulations on firearms.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson assured that the ordinance would be revised in light of Nguyen’s concerns. However, during the December meeting, Mark Infanzon, the chief lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens’ Defense League (AzCDL), extracted the proposed update from the consent agenda for further dialogue.

Infanzon expressed reservations, stating, “The amendment still violates our state constitution concerning the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions, leaving Sedona non-compliant.” These landmark Supreme Court rulings have established significant precedents regarding firearm rights.

Christianson contested this analysis, indicating that the changes had received approval from both the Attorney General’s Office and legislative counsel. He added that the lawmakers who initially raised concerns were also in agreement with the proposed amendments.

Contentions between the two representatives peaked regarding the classification of weapons. Infanzon maintained that the definition of “arms” under the Heller decision encompasses all defensive weapons, including crossbows and longbows, which he argued remain improperly restricted.

Despite the objections, the council ultimately passed the amendments to the ordinance without further discussion.

Following the council’s decision, AzCDL’s Media Coordinator, Charles Heller, raised the stakes. “They’re acting illegally,” he claimed on December 12, signaling that the organization may pursue legal action. “We’re prepared to file suit; litigation is on the table with the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.”

As of December 13, an update from the Attorney General’s Office disclosed that the original complaint had been withdrawn by the legislators who filed it.