The city of Flagstaff may face a lawsuit over its forthcoming decision to ban a firearms advertisement.
In a press release issued earlier this week, the Goldwater Institute said that the city’s ban, if approved, would constitute an illegal violation of free speech.
“When a city operates a public facility, it cannot use that authority to censor messages or viewpoints it disagrees with,” said the Goldwater Institute. “But that’s just what the city of Flagstaff is doing: abusing its power to push an anti-gun agenda.”
The Phoenix-based public policy organization reached out to the city to request they reject the ban on behalf of a business owner who, it appears, prompted the ban: Rob Wilson, owner of the indoor gun range Timberline Firearms and Training.
“By denying Mr. Wilson’s request to advertise based on an unreasonable and pretextual application of the advertising policy, the City has violated Mr. Wilson’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process of law,” stated the letter. “Moreover, the new policy currently under consideration is unconstitutional, both as applied to Mr. Wilson (as it expressly targets his expression) and on its face (as it bans broad, poorly-defined categories of speech and discriminates based on content and viewpoint).”
Wilson had run his gun range business ads without issue at the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport since 2019. It wasn’t until April that the city denied his ad. City officials claimed that Wilson’s advertisement conflicted with their advertising guidelines by representing “violence or antisocial behavior.” Wilson’s contested ad video is below.
The city refused Wilson’s attempt at an appeal. Afterwards, the city developed a new policy specifically prohibiting the inclusion of firearms in advertisements.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen explained during a council meeting last month that the rejection of the Timber Firearms and Training ad was due to the video depicting a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
Wilson, a Navy veteran, said that his city leadership went against the Constitution he fought to defend for decades.
“Denying my right to advertise is simply wrong,” said Wilson. “After serving 22 years on active duty to defend the Constitution, I’m not about to sacrifice my rights.”
Lawmakers warned the city last month, ahead of a city council discussion of the ban, that it would be both unconstitutional and unlawful.
During discussion of the policy, city officials said they felt that the advertisement video was unwelcoming and discomforting. Councilmember Miranda Sweet said that Timber Firearms and Training might have to compromise on the issue.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Although the Goldwater Institute stated in its letter that the Flagstaff City Council may consider the firearms advertisement ban during its Nov. 7 regular meeting, a city spokesperson informedAP News that an “updated version” of the policy would be included in the Nov. 14 council meeting.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The secretary of state’s office lacks the processes in place to remove about 78,000 potential noncitizens and nonresidents from its voter rolls.
In its last two quarterly reports issued to the state legislature in May and August, respectively, the department reported that it had received reports of but not acted on over 78,200 potentially invalid voters. The secretary of state’s office didn’t respond to our inquiry as to whether they have since put in place any processes to remove those potentially invalid voters from the voter rolls.
Through the beginning of August, the secretary of state received reports of over 53,200 persons reported to have been issued a driver’s license or equivalent of an Arizona nonoperating ID license in another state; over 1,300 persons who admitted to not being a citizen on a jury questionnaire; and over 23,600 persons who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire. In those cases, the secretary of state’s office disclosed that a process for sending notices, placing voter registrations on inactive status, or canceling voter registrations was “in development.”
These reports were included as exhibits in a Monday filing by Attorney General Kris Mayes in the case Mi Familia Vota v. Adrian Fontes, a case seeking to nullify state election integrity laws requiring stricter standards for voter proof of citizenship and voter roll cleanups.
These reports were previously believed to have not been submitted to the legislature, per previous reporters’ accounts of an inability to obtain the records. According to the exhibits, the two reports were submitted to Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-AZ-14) and House Speaker Ben Toma (R-AZ-27).
Last month, the Democratic Party-backed activist groups secured a partial win in a ruling from Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton. The judge determined that the proof of citizenship requirement set forth by the two laws in question, HB 2492 and HB 2243, posed too great a burden on voters.
Several questions remain before the Arizona District Court in the case.
One concerns whether HB 2492’s requirement that voters provide their place of birth, referred to as the birthplace requirement, violates 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), referred to as the materiality provision.
“No person acting under color of law shall – deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election,” states the federal statute.
Last week, the Biden administration issued a brief declaring that birthplace wasn’t material to determining voter eligibility. Kristen Clarke, Civil Rights Division assistant attorney general, and Gary Restaino, Arizona District attorney, argued that certain individuals born in the U.S. can be noncitizens such as those with diplomat parents, those who later renounce their citizenship, and those born outside the country to U.S. citizen parents.
Another question concerns whether the voter list maintenance programs set forth by HB 2492 and HB 2243 violate 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(A), referred to as the discrimination provision, or violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
“No person acting under color of law shall – in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote,” states the federal statute.
Another concerns whether the NVRA requirement that states accept and use the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) federal voter registration form preempts HB 2243’s voter list maintenance program.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 6.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Concerning Israel and Palestine, President Joe Biden called for a two-state solution on Wednesday: an independent state for Palestine alongside Israel. With the focus of U.S. efforts apparently pivoting greatly toward that conflict, the U.S. issued an additional $150 million of arms and equipment to Ukraine on Thursday.
Earlier this month, Biggs said on The Todd Starnes Show that Biden ought to be impeached for giving $100 million in relief aid to Gaza, which is under Hamas control, even though Hamas was still holding Americans hostage.
“We’re going to have to borrow that money [and] give it to, basically, a conduit, a pipeline to Hamas,” said Biggs. “He’s adding to our national debt, our structural deficit, and giving it, basically, to Hamas.”
At the start of the year, Biggs said that American interference in Ukraine increased the potential of a world war.
Sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine brings us closer to a major world war and puts American soldiers in harm's way.
You can bet we'll be sending American troops to Ukraine to operate these tanks.
Biggs’ speculation aligns with the size and readiness of the federal government. This year’s National Defense Authorization Act marked the most expensive one passed since World War II, as Biggs noted.
This year's NDAA is the most expensive since World War II.
The Department of Defense is recklessly spending taxpayer dollars on assets it can't track.
Biggs isn’t the only one who has raised concerns about the potential for another World War as of late.
Elon Musk speculated on Monday that the two military conflicts had the potential for initiating a third world war. Musk said that the Biden administration needed to begin deescalation efforts in both conflicts.
“World War III is a civilizational risk that we may not recover from,” said Musk.
A Mesa High School teacher was placed on leave following an allegation that he dressed up as the devil and chanted “Hail Satan” over his students on Wednesday.
Math teacher Jesse Ruiz, donned in a red shirt and devil horns, allegedly held a pitchfork over his students’ heads and said “Hail Satan.” One student who reportedly took offense to the behavior asked for Ruiz to stop, but Ruiz reportedly refused.
That student’s father, Chris Hamlet — a former Mesa School Board candidate — posted a picture of the incident on X (formerly Twitter).
In a complaint filed with MPS, Hamlet said that Ruiz held the pitchfork over his son’s head and repeated “Hail Satan” even after his son pushed away the pitchfork and asked for the behavior to stop. Hamlet further claimed that Ruiz also “pointed the pitchfork” in his son’s face.
Hamlet also reported that his son also previously endured “an inappropriate conversation” with Ruiz in which the teacher accused his son of homophobia.
“My CHRISTIAN son told [Ruiz] several times not to do that to him and even attempted to push the pitchfork away from his head, but this teacher continued on and did it anyways,” said Hamlet. “This teacher also had an inappropriate conversation with my son and another student a few weeks back and called my son homophobic, because this teacher, is in fact, a homosexual.”
HAIL SATAN IN MESA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Mesa Public Schools is hypersexualizing, indoctrinating, and grooming our children at every turn!!
Just a few short hours ago, one of the 10th grade geometry teachers at Mesa High School wore horns and a pitchfork to school… pic.twitter.com/ICYedNLprD
AZ Free News reached out to Mesa Public Schools (MPS) about the matter. A spokesperson informed us that MPS Human Resources began an investigation on Thursday morning after receiving notification of the incident on Wednesday evening. They also informed us that Ruiz was placed on paid administrative leave pending the result of their investigation.
We also reached out to Ruiz for comment on the matter. He didn’t respond by press time.
Ruiz was honored last year as a Pay Tribute to a Teacher winner for KTAR News, earning a $2,500 prize for his creativity in facilitating student learning at his former MPS school, Skyline High School.
“[S]preading the word of physics and math, you know, I know it’s not everyone’s favorite subject, but I love it so much,” said Ruiz. “I think my bubbly personality kind of helps with that.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Biden administration has set its sights on the largest private Christian university in the nation: Arizona’s Grand Canyon University (GCU).
For over half a decade the Department of Education (ED) has denied GCU’s IRS-granted nonprofit status. After GCU pushed back with legal action, the Biden administration responded with the full force of bureaucracy: a multi-agency attack to discredit and impose hefty fines on the university.
GCU President Brian Mueller told AZ Free News that ED’s rejection of a university’s IRS designation was new and unprecedented. Mueller maintained that ED offered “inapplicable criteria” for the denial.
The president couldn’t say with certainty whether the true cause of the ED targeting had to do with religious or political differences, but didn’t rule out the possibility.
“It’s obviously something other than the facts at hand,” said Mueller. “Is it because we have 30,000 graduates on an annual basis, where they’re studying from a Christian worldview?”
Although GCU is open about its Christian foundation and teachings, it doesn’t require its students to sign a statement of faith. Mueller estimated that 30 percent of incoming students don’t identify as Christians.
“We’re not a church, we’re a university,” said Mueller. “There’s free speech here. That’s one of the attractive things about us.”
GCU’s ethical positions do put it at odds with the federal government: GCU believes that God created the world and that truth comes from Him; that full personhood begins at the moment of conception and ceases at natural death; and that only the union between a man and a woman qualifies as a marriage.
“Resistance to the state is only appropriate when the state requires disobedience to the commands of God,” states GCU’s position on religious liberty. “Christian faith is a personal matter but the implications of faith in Christ should not and cannot remain private. Anyone who follows Christ in truth should strive to live in the way that Christ lived both in private and in public.”
In a public statement, GCU speculated that the targeting was due to ideological differences between their institution and the federal bureaucracy. GCU offers an education from a Christian worldview to its 30,000-odd graduates annually, though students aren’t required to sign a statement of faith. This year, the university brought in another 26,000 on-campus students and 92,000 online students.
“[W]e believe these agenda-driven actions are unprecedented against a regionally accredited 501(c)(3) designated nonprofit university and GCU categorically denies the claims being brought forth, which lack merit and illustrate extreme government overreach in what we believe is an attempt to harm a university to which individuals in these agencies are ideologically opposed,” said GCU.
ED has rejected GCU’s nonprofit status by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for over five years now. The IRS granted GCU its nonprofit status in July 2018; it took ED until November 2019 to deny the IRS classification, despite 26 other governmental, accrediting, and official entities accepting the nonprofit status including: the Arizona Corporation Commission, Arizona Private Postsecondary Board, Higher Learning Commission (HLC), and the NCAA.
ED maintains that since GCU’s majority revenues go to its former owner — Grand Canyon Education (GCE), a for-profit entity — that it doesn’t qualify as a nonprofit. GCU said that the revenues given to GCE were for education services at fair market value, as reported in investigations by two independent accounting and finance firms shared with the Biden administration.
After GCU spent over a year attempting to resolve the ED denial, it sued the agency in February 2021. The timeline indicates that the lawsuit spurred a coordinated effort between ED, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to target GCU. Several months later, ED launched a multi-year, off-site review of GCU.
Then, in October 2021, the FTC named GCU as one of 70 for-profit institutions on which it would exercise a decades-dormant punitive power: the Penalty Offense Authority (POA). The FTC alleged GCU, among others, to be a “bad actor” engaging in “unfair or deceptive” practices regarding “false promises” of graduate job and earning prospects. Each violation incurs civil penalties of up to about $50,000 (about $43,800 in 2021).
In that October 2021 announcement, the FTC declared their action was a “resurrection” of the POA, in which they would coordinate with ED and VA; the last time the FTC exercised the POA was in 1978.
Under the POA, the FTC may seek civil penalties if it can prove that its target was aware that certain conduct was unfair or deceptive, and that the FTC had previously issued a written decision on the conduct in question.
The three agencies began their investigations into GCU in 2022: the FTC in May, ED in June (regarding doctoral degrees), and VA in October.
One of FTC’s main accusations was that GCU had a disproportionate number of students who defaulted on federal student loans; GCU responded that its students have a lower loan default rate than the national average at nonprofit universities. FTC also accused Grand Canyon Education, GCU’s education services provider, with making inappropriate cold calls to prospective students. GCU maintained that GCE only reaches out to students who contacted them with interest first, never cold calls.
ED alleged that GCU conveyed substantial misrepresentation regarding its doctoral degree cost. In response, GCU cited the recent federal district and appellate rulings in Young v. GCU, which denied similar claims, and their last Higher Learning Commission (HLC) report declaring robust and transparent financial information practices.
“Their recruitment and marketing materials are clear and transparent, and financial information presented to students throughout the student lifecycle is robust,” said HLC. “The information and resources provided are robust and thorough, providing prospective students a clear picture of their academic and financial path toward a degree at GCU.”
GCU also cited its public calculator for the estimated costs for a 60-credit doctoral program and any potential continuation courses needed to complete a doctoral dissertation. ED requires universities to provide cost of attendance estimates for first year in college to first-year, first-time students, and only for undergraduate programs. GCU also reported that it goes beyond that, providing direct cost estimates for each year of the program of the study and for all its degree programs.
ED also disputed that an online student’s posting of a bio on the first day of class didn’t qualify as “academic-related activity.” GCU countered that ED’s Office of General Counsel told GCU in a 2012 written statement that such postings met that requirement, and that no accrediting bodies, nor ED, have questioned that practice previously, including ED’s last program review in 2014, which made no mention of the practice as problematic.
ED claimed that a 2011 rule change preempted the general counsel’s 2012 email to the university. It required GCU to review all student files from July 2014 to June 2021.
Under VA authority, the Arizona Veterans Services State Approving Agency (AZ SAA) told GCU that its advertising on cybersecurity demand was “erroneous, deceptive, or misleading.” Specifically, the AZ SAA took issue with describing cybersecurity experts as being “in high demand” and that all companies “need cybersecurity.”
GCU said that once it refuted the claim, AZ SAA accepted their refutations as true. GCU claimed that the AZ SAA was pressured by the VA to carry out a different type of audit in order to find fault with GCU’s advertising language regarding cybersecurity.
“It is our belief the SAA was unduly influenced by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with other federal agencies, to conduct and carry out a risk-based audit in this manner rather than the audits it has performed in the past in which the University has received stellar reviews,” said GCU.
GCU says it has spent thousands of man hours and millions of dollars in legal fees to fulfill the Biden administration’s requests. It noted that these ongoing costs and potential fines threaten to upend its 15-year freeze on tuition — a major factor for its growth and, as a result, exposure of a Christian worldview-based education to more Americans.
“[B]ecause GCU, like almost all private universities, is dependent on tuition as a primary revenue stream and does not receive state funding like state universities, the university may be forced to raise tuition if the legal fees or fines associated with these actions continue to escalate,” stated the university. “We are, in essence, trying to protect our students from this government overreach.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
