First Amendment win for Second Amendment cause

http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2014/CV 12-0878.pdf

City of Pheonix AZ first accepted, then rejected, ads at bus stops for firearm training (along with a lot of editorial comment). City of Pheonix gets spanked - hard.

stay safe.

Excellent

This is an example of baby steps. But, baby steps are an excellent tool now and then. Baby steps require a lifelong commitment to a just cause. Let's go for big victories, but never overlook the small, but important baby steps.

Except that is not why the court reversed ... free speech? He complied with the ad requirements was the decision by the court and as long as he "adequately displayed" an ad, the other speech issues were irrelevant. And the court ruled that the other speech, sans the ad wording, could not be used as a reason not to display the ad.

It does not mean that you can have an ad that just says "guns save lives" and demand that they accept the posting. You can have the wording in your ad but you must still show an actual ad for product or services in the ad.

This one got lucky because they changed the law .... if the law was not changed, he'd be on the losing side.

They asked for the ad to be accepted in 2010 .. the law was changed in 2011. So he got to argue 2011 law as well as 2010.

davidmcbeth said:

Except that is not why the court reversed ... free speech? He complied with the ad requirements was the decision by the court and as long as he "adequately displayed" an ad, the other speech issues were irrelevant. And the court ruled that the other speech, sans the ad wording, could not be used as a reason not to display the ad.

It does not mean that you can have an ad that just says "guns save lives" and demand that they accept the posting. You can have the wording in your ad but you must still show an actual ad for product or services in the ad.

This one got lucky because they changed the law .... if the law was not changed, he'd be on the losing side.

They asked for the ad to be accepted in 2010 .. the law was changed in 2011. So he got to argue 2011 law as well as 2010.

Click to expand...

What you wrote may be true, but IMHO this will still be seen as a win for Gun Rights. Most people will not be able to separate the content of the ad from the technical requirements, and very few people (or 'journalists') actually understand the legal issues.

Can you not agree that this is a win?

JamesCanby said:

What you wrote may be true, but IMHO this will still be seen as a win for Gun Rights. Most people will not be able to separate the content of the ad from the technical requirements, and very few people (or 'journalists') actually understand the legal issues.

Can you not agree that this is a win?

Click to expand...

It certainly is a win for the one who wished to post the ad for the ad that they wanted to post. And the ad will contain a positive pro-gun message.

They may just change the law back too .. and then the win is still a win but no one that can be duplicated.

Almost any ad can be politicized..an ad for an abortion clinic services is certainly implying that abortions are good.

So a win for folks who want to give political opinion within ads? Right now, a win, and the court seems to give a blue print on how to make this within the law...so the court memo was very nice in that respect.

The court did not rule that one could take out an ad just to advertise a political viewpoint (almost bound by previous law) so if the petitioners feel like its a an actual of desired "win" is a question. When they wanted the ad, the law was 100% against them and it was only the change in the law that got them a win. I don't think that the petitioners wanted a win like this but a win where political ads were OK and could not be denied.

So, as the law stands now, it seems easy to make them take a political statement contained within an ad. But they can change the law and remove this tomorrow if they wanted to.

So a "win" is in the eyes of the parties. I have "won" civil cases and felt like I lost and I have lost cases and felt like I've won. It depends on what is trying to be accomplished I guess.

I see the result as a tie myself.

David's analysis is correct (if lacking in refinement).

It may be a "win", but only barely. And it's not a win for "gun rights" or "free speech". It's a win against a single imbecilic decision by particularly imbecilic bureaucracy.

fjpro2a said:

This is an example of baby steps.

Click to expand...

True. I, however, prefer the slingshot approach, baby and all. Let them "learn on the fly," as it were.