State Gun Control Preemption Laws are a Violation of the Principle of Local Control

texas gun law legislative session

Bigstock

Texas has a preemption law that prohibits cities from enacting gun control laws that are more restrictive than those at the state level. Some see that as interference with local control.

“It seems as though the people in the state don’t like Washington telling them what to do, that local control is good, but it’s only good at the state level,” [Galveston city council member Jackie] Cole said. “For them to be able to tell us from Austin that in Galveston the citizens can’t decide where they want to have a gun range or that they don’t want a gun range next door to their schools is amazingly outrageous.”

– Nick Powell in Galveston to vote on repealing gun regulations after Ken Paxton threatens lawsuit

comments

  1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    bunched panty concentrations.

  2. avatar Grumpy says:

    I hate to admit it, but she makes a good point.

    1. avatar Hush says:

      Careful consideration relative to location could produce more support in a positive way. No need to create problems needlessly. Range owners should consider their neighbors feelings before constructing.

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        The problem is not range owners, it’s developers building houses right next to ranges, and the people buying them not doing their due diligence before their purchase. Often these ranges were way out of town when constructed, and then some idiot moved right in next door and didn’t like the noise.

        1. avatar Hush says:

          @M1LOU: Well, that is another story altogether. Shame on the land developers and those who purchase property close to a gun range and afterwards complain about the noise. Thanks for the clarification. I stand/sit corrected once again…

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Shame on the land developers and those who purchase property close to a gun range and afterwards complain about the noise.”

          *Snort*

          Thanks to the California model, that’s the accepted way to shut down local airports. An airport once way outside of town has development getting close to it, and the next thing they know, there are complaints people hear airplanes. Next thing you know, good-bye airport.

          The Leftists are just applying the same playbook that worked so well in the past in California.

          I’d *love* to see the SCOTUS grant Cert. in one of those cases just so Thomas can ask the council “You didn’t notice airplanes flying overhead when looking at the property? What special kind of stupid are you, anyways?”

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Precisely the same thing done to airports. When Austin’s Bergstrom AFB was scheduled for closing (1990?), a whole bunch of developers jumped in looking for the quick buck. When the city began discussing moving their airport to Bergstrom, the screaming began, about the noise among other things. Now, Bergstrom had been home to a fighter wing equipped with F-4s, one of the loudest aircraft on the planet (the F-105 held the title until the Harrier came along!). Overall noise level would plunge with commercial airlines instead, but I WANT MY MONEY was the order of the day.

        4. avatar Stuck in NJ says:

          The problem isn’t range owners, it’s the fact that the government makes it so hard (and in some states, IMPOSSIBLE) to buy sound suppressors.
          In a free nation, here is what would happen:

          1) Neighbors complain about the noise.

          2) The government de-regulates suppresors completely, removes the $200 tax on them, and allows everyone one to buy them or make them at home (you can make one for under $10 using a simple part from your local auto parts store — if they government would only legalize making your own).

          3) The gun club (not the government, the private club) passes a rule saying that in order to be good neighbors with the community, suppressors are required on all guns (except maybe .22 LR, since that’s fairly quiet already).

          Problem solved!

    2. avatar napresto says:

      She does have a point, I agree, but this is the United States, and laws in the US are obligated to adhere to the constitution, no matter whether local, state, or federal. When lawmakers decide they want to make a “constitution free zone,” no matter how localized, the easiest recourse (a band-aid, not a real solution) is to pass a state or even federal law to prevent this.

      The correct approach would be to aggressively police and enforce the constitutionality of the laws we pass in the first place (which is to say that there is already a federal preemption of local and state gun ordinances: it’s called the second amendment). No politician, republican or democrat, will ever do this. If they adhered to the constitution as written, most of them would have nothing to do, and the American public might begin safely ignoring them. Can’t have that: it would end the gravy train.

      1. avatar burley says:

        Exactly! The 2A is the PREEMINENT pre-emption law concering gun control. Precious few seem to understand this.

    3. avatar StLPro2A says:

      The whole concept of gun control and preemption is a null concept as it infringes on “….shall not be infringed.” Once the first wrong turn was taken, everything else is null…….except where anti-Constitutionalists are allowed to draw breath and rule.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      Nah. This lady is up in the night.

      This nation isn’t a million petty fiefdoms; it’s a united collection of states (say, that has a ring to it, don’t you think? United States). States make the laws by which localities abide, and this lady is exhibit A in why that is.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        All she needs to do is take her proposals to the legislature and honor their decision, but she wants the POWER!!!

    5. avatar The Docent says:

      She does not have a point. The United States were formed by independent countries (states) that were the sovereigns over their respective territories which joined together in a federation. The federal government is (supposed to be) an entity of limited powers. Moreover, in most states, local governments are creations of the state in which they are located. So, local governments are subject to the state governments in a way that state governments are not subject to the federal government.

    6. avatar Sean Ebra says:

      As long as it’s something as common sense simple as deciding that a gun range doesn’t belong next to a school I agree. Just don’t propose to not allow me my constituitional rights such as gun free zones.

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    It’s a matter of degree, kind, and purpose.

  4. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Nothing should preempt the Bill of Rights.

  5. avatar retmsgt says:

    Good points notwithstanding, there’s a different relationship between Washington and the states, and The State and the municipalities contained therein.

    The federal government in Washington, D.C., although a creation of the several states, can, for matters interstate, coax or force the several states to comply with its wishes.

    As far as The State and its municipalities, said municipalities are political creations of the state, created and permitted by the state, and are at all times subject to the permissions and restrictions of the state. Incorporated governments can only do that which is authorized by state law. Home Rule governments can do whatever they want (if it’s in their charter), but cannot do that which is prohibited by state law.

    Municipalities lack standing to oppose the state in court.

    1. avatar DesertDave says:

      In AZ Tucson, a libritard bastion of insanity, decided that they were going to destroy confiscated and/or bought back firearms against state law. The state stopped that. Good Law.

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      Nicely put, Msgt!

  6. avatar Mad Max says:

    Wait until Federal preemption goes into effect…

    Strict Scrutiny applied to the 2nd Amendment and the full Incorporation of the 14th Amendment could bring us close.

    Since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, state and local governments are under the same restrictions as the Federal government when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

    Clever activist judges have managed (up until Heller) to rule that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right. When the SCOTUS ruled it an individual right in Heller, these judges used intermediate scrutiny to allow infringement based on
    “compelling government interest”. Once strict scrutiny is required, the 2nd Amendment will be on par with the 1st Amendment and no longer be a second class right.

    I suspect that those same activist judges will then rule that the 2nd Amendment is not fully incorporated by the 14th Amendment, thus allowing some state and local gun control to stand until the SCOTUS makes clear (as Kavanaugh has stated) that the Bill of Rights is fully incorporated.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Wait until Federal preemption goes into effect…

      Strict Scrutiny applied to the 2nd Amendment and the full Incorporation of the 14th Amendment could bring us close.”

      That’s just going to begin the hard work. Leftist states aren’t going to just lay down when that happens, you will hear them spouting off some variation of “No right is absolute…”

      They can always pass more laws than the court can slap down…

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        You are correct in that it will take a decade or more of litigation to get to where we need to be.

        Trump’s Originalist Federal district and appeals court appointees will help in that they will be more likely to carefully apply strict scrutiny than the 9th Circuit judges that ruled on the Peruta case.

        As time goes on, the State and local governments will have injunctions slapped on them early on in the proceedings more often. Eventually (after a long time), they’ll just give up.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      14th amendment is unimportant here, 2A was written to apply to thebstates to begin with, that is why it is not simply a part of 1A. 1A needed the 14th to apply to states since its directive is “Congress (!!!) shall make no law … “, leaving states free to make their own laws. 2A had no such waffling, directing “shall not be infringed”, clearly meaning “by anybody”.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “2A was written to apply to thebstates to begin with,”

        I would enjoy reading notes from the founders regarding that interpretation.

        1. That was PRECISELY the intent of the Bill of Rights when presented to congress by Mr. Madison. So here, enjoy THIS:

          Here is what Mr. Madison had declared in the U.S. Congress concerning our Bill of Rights:

          There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were satisfied in this one point: We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. . . .

          But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done . . .

          But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents, such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. . . .

          I know some respectable characters who opposed this government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.

          It has been a fortunate thing that the objection to the government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable on that ground to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the government by those who promoted its adoption.

          The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these: . . .

          The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. . . .

          In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. . . .

          But whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.

          In our government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker: It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least controul; hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. . . .

          It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

          I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty. . . .

          I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community.–James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, June 8th, 1789.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Good article. However…..

          Madison’s fears about States use of their powers internally were not the subject of the constitution controlling the federal government. Nothing in the writings, or the document itself conceives, much less mandates, that States conform their constitutions to that imposed on the federal government…until 1868.

          The 9th and 10th amendments are clear that innumerable powers are retained by the states unless, and until specifically delegated to the federal government. The Second Amendment delegates no power to the central committee, nor does it have any element to indicate that the states intended the amendment to constrain the states. The Virginia constitution is a perfect example of state power regulating firearms in a manner prohibited the central government.

          Madison’s fears of what might happen in the States is irrelevant to the actual national constitution and amendments. One must note that while expressing his fears, Madison makes no statement that the constitution must, or should constructed, to impose the federal constitution onto the States; no mention of requiring States to conform their individual constitutions to the federal compact.

        3. Sam I Am – “Madison’s fears about States use of their powers internally were not the subject of the constitution controlling the federal government. Nothing in the writings, or the document itself conceives, much less mandates, that States conform their constitutions to that imposed on the federal government…until 1868.”

          WRONG AGAIN, as the Constitution itself makes it crystal clear:

          U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

          2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

          3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          (very long reply follows, if not interested in discussions about the founding of the nation, simply delete this submission)

          Nothing in the constitution states that States surrendered all power to the central government. From your standpoint, there would be no reason for a process to amend the constitution. The legislature and the executive only need to pass and implement whatever law they like, without regard to the constitution. This “Supreme Law of the Land” you keep boasting is not extra-constitutional. But let’s look at a time when the idea that a constitutional amendment was not required, a time when it was thought mere legislation could remove a constitutional right from a States (or States)….1850-1860.

          During the era identified, slavery was the hot button political issue of the times. Many States, within their power (not because of some inferred reasoning of words in the constitution), decided to outlaw slavery. Since the federal government was not permitted to interfere with the states regarding a retained power (commonly described as “States rights”), the national legislature could not validly outlaw slavery across the nation. A number of tactics were proposed and debated as measures to effectively, through mere legislation, to choke slavery into non-existence.

          At the same time, the slave-holding States, regarding the Constitution as a voluntary compact (join, or withdraw as deemed appropriate), began making noises about removing themselves from a government (nation) that did not follow the Constitution regarding internal affairs of the States, affairs that were not permitted to the central government to regulate. In essence, the only valid, legal, acceptable (maybe) means to outlaw slavery was through a constitutional amendment. The anti-slavery movement knew that such an amendment would fail, which was the reason for the other political tactics proposed.

          If one studies the period from 1850 to 1860, you will note a lack of serious effort to sue the slave-holding States in federal court, as a means of overturning all the slave laws (effectively ending slavery). Neither the abolitionists nor the slavers saw bringing suit under the constitution as a viable means to settle the dispute. One is left to wonder how the nation would have developed if the slavers had been challenged in federal court. The matter was settled, not as a constitutional issue, but as a use of force.

          The 13th Amendment was not ratified until 06 Dec1865, eight months after the War Between the States ended. Indeed, the 13th was not even passed by the remaining Senate until April 1864, and the house January 1865. Why the delay? One would have thought that such an amendment would have been a slam dunk after P.T.G. Beauregard started “the Civil War”.

          Strangely enough, the Congress representing the Union after the Southern States seceded did not attempt to pass national legislation outlawing slavery in the US. It was only at the end of “the Civil War”, that the Congress of the Union was comfortable that the votes were in hand to use a constitutional amendment to end slavery.

          What does all this tell us? That legislation not in accord with the Constitution is not “the Supreme Law of the Land”. That even after ratification of the national constitution, the States retained power to hold slaves, notwithstanding any mere legislative attempt to repeal/abolish slavery nationwide. Then we have to ask why it was that with zero delegates from seceded States, the national legislature did not simply pass abolition legislation?

          Under slavery, the slaves had no civil rights under the constitution. None of the individual liberty safeguards contained in the constitution/BOR applied, regardless of “the Supreme Law of the Land”. In short, restrictions on the power of the national government (like the 4th/5th Amendments) did not apply to the States (or the slaves), because those amendments restricted only the national government.

          The national constitution requires all states to install a representative form of government. Does it require require each state to have a bicameral structure? Does the national constitution require that the judicial branch of government must be appointed, rather than elected? Could national legislation mandate bicameral structure for legislatures? Could national legislation mandate state-level judges be appointed rather than elected? Where is the simple legislation mandating that every state will repeal its individual constitution? Where is the mandate that every state must have a formal constitution? Where is the constitutional power given the national government to do these things with legislation?

          The idea that national legislation supersedes the constitution because the national laws are “the Law of the Land” necessarily implies that the constitution is unnecessary.

          In short, in the beginning, the states were superior to the national government, and nowhere in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention is there a jot of intent impress the national constitution onto the States, except where specifically delegated, not inferred.

        5. Apparently your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. Or, you are a demonRat. In either event, the Constitution means precisely that which was written. And no amount of bloviation will alter that fact.

        6. Here’s another nugget of TRUTH from a highly respected early American U.S. Supreme Court Justice for you to digest:

          The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          …We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union–in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable–so recognised by all our fundamental laws.

          The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.

          The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; “to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate.” A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.

          An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.

          We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated.

          –Hon. Henry Baldwin, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Charge to the Jury, [Pennsylvania April Term 1833, Johnson v. Tompkins (13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

          Take a hike, as you quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

  7. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    So this person is trying alternate routes to control others and is surprised that the level of resistance is the same? How shocking.

  8. avatar DaveL says:

    So, if the Virginia state legislature makes a bunch of new gun control laws that the rural counties don’t want, it’s that a violation of this “principle of local control”?

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      Yes. I mean no…umm, it’s for the children!

    2. avatar Herb Allen says:

      The runaway Virginia state legislature is currently debating a bill, among other gungrabbing measures, to repeal the state’s preemption law which if passed will allow liberal localities to run riot over the 2nd Amendment. Notice it’s never about fighting crime, but always about persecuting the law-abiding who disagree with liberalism?

      Remember that “assault weapons” ban in Deerfield, Illinois? Still on the books but town government has ruled out knocking on doors, so it’s a Mexican standoff.

      But Northern Virginia is radicalized, diverse, and multicultural, so a lot of stupid stuff will get passed.

  9. avatar enuf says:

    Galveston city council was appropriately spanked. Good.

    State preemption laws are as reasonable or unreasonable as are Federal preemption laws. All must be judged on the basis of the reasons behind them, the problems they claim to deal with and the foundational laws they may collide with. A city may not create a law or regulation violating the State Constitution any more than the US Congress may act against the US Constitution.

    They can try, but they will be resisted and eventually, the rule of law shall return.

    What was the city of Galveston trying to protect itself against in prohibiting indoor shooting ranges near schools or churches? Noise? Bullets flying thru the walls? Well those things are reasonable concerns, which are appropriately addressed with building codes.

    Such regulations have long existed at every level of government, all the city had to do was a little research. Possibly the county or state already had it covered. Possibly all the city needed, if anything, was to say “Do what these existing laws already say to do”. I am not familiar with Texas building codes, but that sort of thing happens fairly often.

    If it was a morality thing, the city council had only loose sand under their feet. There is nothing immoral about the lawful ownership and use of firearms. There is nothing immoral about the lawful conduct of a firearms business. There is no threat to any school or church from a gun shop being anywhere, or any particular distance, from those places. If a bunch of hoplophobes on a city council wanted to exert their self imagined moral superiority over the population, the State did the right thing by putting them in their place.

    Myself, I live in one of those free states. Constitutional Carry, openly or concealed, as it should be. Shall issue permits, if you want one. State preemption, we have that too and only because one of our cities wanted to create their own gun control laws. That’s the point, state preemption laws come about because small pockets of morons decide the rights of everyone else do not apply to their special little conclave.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “Myself, I live in one of those free states. Constitutional Carry, openly or concealed, as it should be.”

      Count your blessings, and know that we in CA are envious of your ability to carry. Former Governor Jerry Brown removed our ability to open carry after 161 years of statehood, and many of our 53 counties (most notably Los Angeles, in which I reside) are run by Sheriffs who adamantly oppose private carry and do not issue CCWs. So those of us who choose to defend ourselves are left with very little legal leeway.

      Unfortunately, our Democrat-led, anti-gun political culture has persisted for so long, that many younger LEOs here have literally grown up in this environment, and aren’t accustomed to seeing any private citizen with a (legal) gun on the hip.

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      ‘Gun shops are icky, gun owners are icky, we must scrub all mention of guns from polite conversation and any images because they are scary looking, lalalala, not going to think of them, if we pretend they don’t exist they go away.”

      The fallacy is the “guns = bad” thinking; most murder and violence is related to other criminal behavior, not proximity to gun shops.

      On the one hand most of these officials want me to buy all my guns and ammo from licensed local gun shops, go to shop for mandatory training and paperwork, come back again after a waiting period, only buy one gun a month so I need to keep coming back if I want multiple guns, serialize homemade guns at the FFL, buy all gun parts there, do any transfers and trades with friends at the shop, pay extra taxes at the shop, don’t do private sales or online sales, store my guns at the local shop under lock and key…. But they also want the local shop to be either outside City limits or in a run down part of town, or, better yet, to not exist.

      Maybe they should just come out and say “we are trying to keep people from buying and owning guns.”

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Gun grabbers don’t push all the stuff you’ve mentioned and much more out of fear of guns, or feeling they are icky.

        Note the exemptions for agents of the state in all their gun grabbing schemes.They simply hate the thought of regular folks being armed and therefore able to refuse the leftist agenda. It’s about control and power.

        Crime, suicides, mass shootings, accidents. If all of that dropped to zero tonight, they would still scream for gun control tomorrow. All of that is just pretext for disarmament of the opposition. The evil wants us defenseless.

  10. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    The purpose of the preemption law is to keep 50 cities/towns from enacting 50 different gun laws making it impossible for gun owners to move about the state without breaking some local law/ordinance.. If their only issue is the location of a gun range then they should be able to work that out with the state… At issue in this particular situation was an ordinance passed by the city of Galveston preventing the placement of Gun SHOPS in the vicinity of a school or place of worship no one was trying to open a gun range next to a school and most likely no one intends to…

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Even if someone did open a shooting range next to the school, so what? It’s not like bullets are flying out of the range, hitting everything around it. Gun shops are not going to sell to under aged, no matter how close to school they stand.
      Gun grabbers just don’t want armed people anywhere, especially where kids can see them as normal everyday folks, who have safe fun with firearms. That could destroy the whole anti-gun rights indoctrination campaign on which they spent so much time and effort.

  11. avatar Felix says:

    It’s a common complaint when the consistency required prevents government abuse, and of course shows up from whichever partisans are prevented from abusing the other partisans.

    But basic rights don’t change when crossing artificial lines on a map. How many of these same partisans think slavery should be ok, differing by city and county? How many think cities and counties and states should be able to ignore freedom of the press, speech, etc?

  12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Civics classes are sorely needed. In our country, the several States are the sovereign entities. The 9th and 10th amendments put barriers around State powers enumerated to the federal government.

    A municipality is NOT similarly a sovereign entity; rather, it is subordinate to the State.

    The premise is specious.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Yup. Apples and oranges.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Civics classes are sorely needed.”

      That will never return until forced by law, and even then, Leftist districts will warp what is taught to match their perverted politics.

      From the Wall Street Journal website :

      “Students debate Seattle’s plan to ‘rehumanize’ K-12 mathematics with talk of ‘privilege’ and ‘oppression.’”

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/24/dems_cant_take_the_chance_of_voters_deciding_2020_election.html

      If they can do that with _math_, imagine the damage they can wreak on science…

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Until it all blows up in their face.

        The Left is trying to “wake” and apply diversity and inclusion to STEM.

        When bridges and buildings start collapsing, dams burst, and power and water treatment plants shutdown, they will reap what they have sewn.

        When the Internet shuts down, real mass panic will set in.

        I keep telling my coworkers (plant engineering and operations) that we need to setup our own town with it’s own resources and take turns operating the plants.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          With no reliance on “Atlas Shrugged” for pertinent ideas, right?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “When bridges and buildings start collapsing, dams burst, and power and water treatment plants shutdown, they will reap what they have sewn.”

          Why are so many people so ignorant about diversity in science and engineering. There really is a different set of math and engineering principles set aside for any group of sufficient diversity of skin color. What we call “laws of physics” were not established in consultation with and consent of all people of individual ethnicity. For instance, no one asked the Powhatan tribes for their input. There was no consent given by the Hutu.

          Because so many indigenous peoples were left out of “the sciences”, we have no reliable way to evaluate whether Caucasian concepts are the only ones that actually “work”. Gotta give other peoples a chance to try their ideas.

        3. avatar Someone says:

          Yeah, we should definitely ask each and every ethnic group for reevaluation of the whole scientific and industrial knowledge base. Especially those peoples which until their relatively recent discovery by the Europeans lived in the stone age and didn’t know what a wheel is.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      This is basically what I was going to say. Territories joined the Union to become states they were not created by that Union.

      Cities OTOH are “creatures of the states”, they exist at the pleasure of the state legislature. There’s nothing that prevents a state from dissolving the city as a political entity by revoking the city’s charter and returning political control to the county or to the state itself.

      As is so often the case, the logic is valid but the argument is unsound due to being based on a flawed premise.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      Civics classes are everywhere. The problem is, they’re doing very little teaching of actual US civics.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        This^. A Civics course is required for a high school degree in most states. That doesn’t mean the courses are any good.

    5. Yet ALL are bound by the Supreme Law of the land. And that is a fact that is beyond all dispute.

  13. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    The ultimate sovereign is the individual and their private property rights. The city, county, or other municipality coercing the individual is as much a violation of “local control” as is state coercion of the municipality or federal coercion of the state.

    All rights, powers, and responsibilities are vested in the individual. A group of individuals has no more rights or powers than any single individual does.

    1. avatar Pwrtool says:

      Except when it comes to vaccines, right CP? Then the herd has authority over the individual.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Only if the individual wishes to join the vaccinated. Homeschool and get a doctor who makes house calls, you’re good to go.

        1. avatar Pwrtool says:

          Funny how dismissive some gun owners are with other people’s individual rights. And we wonder how so many people are so easily duped with anti-gun rhetoric.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Et tu, PeeGee?

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Taken to the extreme those two ideas are incompatible.

      If every person is ultimately entirely sovereign unto themself then the concept of “private property” is essentially void because it only applies to what you can hold by force. If you lost it to a stronger person, or a group of people allied together to dislodge you then that would be that. If your wife or significant other killed in your sleep and took your property that would be fair play as well.

      This is exactly the root problem with “international law” which makes a mockery of the concept and why the U.N. is a joke. International law is nothing more than appeal to sovereign states to play by a set of rules, “pretty please with sugar on top” is about as far as it goes. And when the law is broken, generally, nothing g happens past an international finger wag because nothing can happen.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…then the concept of “private property” is essentially void because it only applies to what you can hold by force.”

        Which is true of all natural, human and civil rights. The law of the jungle always prevails, even though it is dressed up as civilized sets of regulations, and “civil” and “criminal” law.

        The dressed up version of jungle law can be summarized as “applying only to the amount of law/justice you can afford”. Different tools (weapons/money), same underlying concepts.

        Either way, life ain’t equitable.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Misplaced the reply. See below.

  14. “State Gun Control Preemption Laws are a Violation of the Principle of Local Control”

    Actually both local and state ‘gun control laws’ are in violation of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution.

  15. avatar Mike V says:

    Local control that only allows for more restrictions, gee, no thanks.

    Think they’d be in favor of local control if it meant we locally decided no gun laws applied to us?

    1. avatar LKB says:

      Excellent point.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Can we find a municipality which would be willing to declare local constitutional carry, to test Nick Powell’s consistency of principles? Aah, no need, we already heard what gun grabbers like him think about Virginian 2A sanctuaries.

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    Imagine having to stop your car and go online to check local laws before you go through every podunk town- then having to turn around and drive an hour around because you have a gun in the car. Or, in the alternative, getting arrested because you didn’t realize that nowhereburg, PA’s town council of two substitute teachers and a Etsy seller (all of whom ran unopposed) decided to institute a bunch of pet laws.

    Having to deal with differing state laws is bad enough, especially when you’re driving through areas like the Northeast where it’s easy to unknowingly end up in places like (shudder) NJ. But we have to deal with that because the Constitution set up a federal system where states allegedly have most of the power.

    But let’s not pretend like it’s a good idea to let any minor municipality write laws that take away people’s freedom.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Imagine having to stop your car and go online to check local laws before you go through every podunk town- then having to turn around and drive an hour around because you have a gun in the car”

      That’s a feature, not a bug, as far as they are concerned. Force you to go through that every time you left the house to run an errand, you’ll quickly come to the conclusion it’s just not worth it to carry on that or any other trip…

  17. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Underneath it all is the argument for the chaos of democracy. Note that the author does not advocate for local laws regulating banking, or intrastate commerce, or insurance, or an array of other state law superiority.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      But, but …this is completely different, because guns!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “But, but …this is completely different, because guns!”

        Yeah. You got me there.

  18. avatar Shadowwolffe says:

    I agree. If cities do not have to follow state law, the states do not have to follow federal law. There for all GCA law is void and I can make machineguns and suppressors do not have to do background checks, can purchase a battle tank and howitzer and the ammo for them

  19. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Lets extend this a little.

    If the State government cannot control local laws each town can have it’s own dirvers license requirements, can have it’s own car license plates, and it’s own gun control laws.

    Then you have a patchwork of laws that doesn’t work for anyone.

  20. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    So lame brain, a town could enact its own traffic laws( and I don’t mean just speed limits) or its own laws regarding treason. Guns are a National thing with national laws preempting much including who can sell them. Would want to be traveling on an interstate, get stopped and then be arrested for transporting something a burg legislated against even though you hadn’t planned on stopping in that burg, something that would be legal EVERYWHERE else in the country? Or because you didn’t have it packaged for transport in manner consistent with their local ordinance?

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      US Constitution, Article I, Section 10 deals with interstate compacts.

      The best known one is for driver’s licenses (not an enumerated right).

      http://apps.csg.org/ncic/Default.aspx

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, a red light means “go”, a yellow light means “stop”, and a green light means “good luck”. This would work great!

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    I’m sure Gov. Northam of VA would like cities to be able to have “local slavery” and “local Jim Crow”.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Oh, HELL yes!

  22. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    What the hell? Let’s just do away with uniform traffic laws, too. That makes as much sense as taking away firearm preemption laws.

  23. avatar denbozz67 says:

    Where I live, there was a stock car dirt track that held races on Friday nights for about 4 months out of the year from 7 pm to 11pm. This was while I was in high school and it was located a good distance outside of town. As time went by, developers started buying property and building subdivisions nearer and nearer to the track. Eventually, after the track had been their for nearly 30 years, people who had bought the houses closer to the track began filing complaints about the noise. Soon lawsuits started getting filed and before it was over, the track was shut down by people who knew the track was there yet still bought property and built there anyway. Just a simple case of “I don’t like it so NOBODY can enjoy it!”

  24. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Again (talk about a need for education in civics), nothing in those words indicates, implies, mandates that the federal constitution overturns/overrules all State constitutions, except as specifically delegated. The founders were all to well aware of their States power to act independently of a central government. The States were separate, independent and superior to the federal government, in every manner accept as specifically surrendered in provisions of the constitution.

    The phrase “Law of the Land” does not mean conformity of every State to the laws controlling the central government. The intent of the founders was never to create an agency totally superior to the States, nor to impose the restrictions of central power wholesale onto the states. Indeed, the grand arguments among the founders revolved around the possibility that too much power would be delegated to the central committee/federal government. If the Federalists had ever written that the national constitution, in detail, would supplant each and every State constitution, the Articles of Confederation might never have been supplanted.

    To understand the BOR, one must know the environment of language at the time. There was great divide among the State/Colony delegations as to whether the constitution was permissive, or prescriptive. Hence, Federalists and Anti-Federalist views on how sufficiently the central government would be controlled by the new constitution.

    A permissive law/contract/constitution is one where that which is not specifically prohibited, is of a nature to be permitted; “If it ain’t illegal, it’s legal”. A restrictive law/contract/constitution is one where that which is not specifically permitted, is unauthorized; “If it ain’t written, it doesn’t exist.”

    The Federalists stood on the ground that the constitution was restrictive/prescriptive; that which was not declaratively permitted by the central government was prohibited (needing no further discussion). The Anti-federalists knew that government would always try to worm its way into power, unless directly checked by the creators of the government (the States).

    The BOR is the compromise between those who believed that it was unnecessary to list all the powers not granted to the central government, and those who would not agree to the constitution unless certain powers retained by the states were not written to directly confront the central government with its limits. Even after negotiating the BOR, the Anti-federalists insisted on amendments nine and ten to unequivocally nail the theses to the door.

    Where that Anti-federalists were prescient, yet failed, was not demanding a specific statement that the national “constitution did not overturn, supplant, repeal, make obsolete and impotent the constitutions of the States in general and at large”.

  25. avatar strych9 says:

    “The law of the jungle always prevails…”

    I would disagree with this. Entropy can be overcome but it takes discipline and education to do it. Our own country basically proves this to be the case.

    It’s not until education and discipline are intentionally undercut that we really start to have problems. Those problems accelerate as we get farther away from core principles.

    As I’ve said before, even most POTG are not actually grounded, educated or disciplined in a proper manner. We just tend to be taller than average midgets in a field. Feelz get hurt when I say that but it’s still true. You can see evidence of that in various ways on TTAG’s own comment section. It’s nowhere near as bad as other places, like Breitbart which has become the Conservative version of Vox, but we could still use some work.

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That’s a hefty sum and we’re behind on payments but that’s not a reason to give up nor is it a reason to make up excuses to not do that hard work before us. It’s a call to arms for people who actually give a shit.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The Law of the Jungle is the strongest (most forceful) defeating the weakest. Right/wrong do not figure into the equation. Power v. Power.

      The legal system is just a dressed-up substitution. Power v. Power. “Power” being political, monetary, or both combined.

      In the jungle, your personal power determines if you win or lose.

      In the courts, your financial and political power determines if you win or lose. It is merely “trial by combat” minus the weapons and armor.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Not really. Below is a table from the BJS comparing public defenders to private attorneys for the largest 75 counties in the US in the year 2000. Available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/dccc.txt

        Case Public Private
        disposition counsel counsel

        75 largest counties

        Guilty by plea 71.0% 72.8%
        Guilty by trial 4.4 4.3
        Case dismissal 23.0 21.2
        Acquittal 1.3 1.6

        U.S. district courts

        Guilty by plea 87.1% 84.6%
        Guilty by trial 5.2 6.4
        Case dismissal 6.7 7.4
        Acquittal 1.0 1.6

        Nice of them to put that in a .txt for ease of copying to places like TTAG.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Though in retrospect I should have realized TTAG’s going to remove “unnecessary spaces” and fuck up the chart so I should have used pipes and hypens to alter the chart.

          Column 1 is public defender (left) Column 2 is private counsel (right).

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Though in retrospect I should have realized TTAG’s going to remove “unnecessary spaces”

          Understand. Took only two read-throughs to figure it out.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Nice collection of “data”, but seems to lack context.

          How many “guilty” decisions were because the defendant could not afford better representation? Such information may be difficult to unearth. A defendant may be able to afford one meeting with the most successful defense attorney in the country. Based on the first consultation, the attorney proposes that a successful outcome is likely only if the defendant can afford $1 million in fees and court costs, starting with $100k up front. The alternative is $2000 to enter negotiate and enter a guilty plea for reduced sentence.

          My personal experience has only been family related (wills, real estate, estate planning). While not rich, I can afford to avoid Zoom legal forms. However, the rates are in the multi-hundreds of dollars per hour. In the last instance, the attorney charged $100 (15min increments) to answer an email, or a phone call to ask even, “When will I receive your bill?”. Our “estate” has never been more than two cars, and a mortgage on the house. Last update to our wills cost [email protected], just to conform with state law after we transferred here. Can’t imagine I could afford a more than journeyman criminal attorney.

          By comparison, the guy who sold us this house was “connected” locally, big political donor, best clubs, white shoe real estate brokerage. He admitted (after the sale) that he was very fortunate to be successful because he generally had three law suits against him because the price of filing a suit is peanuts, and the winnings might be life changing for the plaintiffs.

          All the justice money can buy.

          BTW, acknowledging the disparity in life that money can bring is not a complaint, merely a recognition of what is, is. I am limited by my choices in life; no one is obligated to protect me from those.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “How many “guilty” decisions were because the defendant could not afford better representation?”

          According to a survey of the convicts, 100%. LOL. No, seriously that’s probably almost impossible to determine. Especially since it’s a time-honored tactic in certain cases to bury the defense in motions and bankrupt the defendant, or threaten to do so, in order to obtain a plea. Seems to be what happened to Gen. Flynn. Those with a public defender are immune to such threats.

          I also don’t think it matters. The numbers for convictions, acquittals, pleas etc are all very, very close to each other. Statistically there’s no reason to think that lots of innocent people get locked up because they end up with a public defender. Were that the case I’d expect a significantly larger discrepancy between public defenders and private attorneys. Even where private attorneys are losing in the stats here they’re pretty darn close to the results from a public defender.

          Torts are entirely different from criminal proceedings. However, I would agree with you on this topic. Tort reform is much needed for exactly the reasons you lay out. Just look at the difference in malpractice insurance between Ohio and Texas. My dad’s buddy is a nephrologist. Running a kidney doc/dialysis clinic costs him almost half a million a year less in insurance premiums after having moved from Ohio to Texas. He passes that savings directly on to his customers.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Statistically there’s no reason to think that lots of innocent people get locked up because they end up with a public defender.”

          Thinking that sentences are greater for people who cannot afford more justice, even with a plea bargain. My top line defense attorney can make it very expensive (delays, re-schedules, unending motions) for the authorities to get heavy sentences. However, my Public Defender has way less leverage in negotiations.

          As to tort, have never understood how a private citizen can financially punish the aggressor. Tort cases are supposed to “make the victim whole again.” Adding punitive damages goes well beyond.

          If punitive damages are allowed, the money should go to the agent who is empowered to punish…the state. Once attorneys understand that punitive damages will not be paid out to the plaintiff, will not be considered part of the civil judgement, all the incentive to seek such damages will go away.

        6. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          PUBLIC Defenders work for the very same people who are trying to prosecute you and signs their paycheck…. Just sayin’…..

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “PUBLIC Defenders work for the very same people who are trying to prosecute you and signs their paycheck…. Just sayin’….”.

          Yeah. Don’t that knock your hat in the creek?

        8. avatar strych9 says:

          “Thinking that sentences are greater for people who cannot afford more justice, even with a plea bargain.”

          They may be. I have never seen any data on that (not that I’ve looked super hard).

          Ultimately I don’t think public vs. private attorney matters that much. It’s more about who knows whom. When I had to go to court I just happened to pick right, my attorney played golf with the prosecutor assigned to the whole mess.

          I showed up at 0850, 10 minutes early to find my lawyer walking out of an unlabeled room in the main hallway, kinda ran into each other, grinning to himself. He sees me, says “Ah, just who I’m looking for and early too! Everything’s good to go. We can leave and I’ll tell you about it”. He and the prosecutor just hashed the whole thing out, every charge dropped out of hand. No pleas, no fines no nothing. Just dropped. Because my lawyer played golf with that particular prosecutor.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…every charge dropped out of hand. No pleas, no fines no nothing. Just dropped. Because my lawyer played golf with that particular prosecutor.”

          Oh my. Old boys network in action. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

  26. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    This is another reason for 2A sanctuary cities/counties/parish.

  27. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I want to see what the idea of gun sanctuaries does to this guy’s mind then. It is somewhat of a contradiction I imagine.

  28. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    “…local control is good, but it’s only good at the state level,” [Galveston city council member Jackie] ”

    “Control” is good, at the level where we have control.

  29. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Local vs. broader is one of The Thirteen American Arguments. <- That's a great book about … those.

    Myself, I think better govt goes with roughly less, more local, n rules vs programs. And the biggest driver of the long-standing success of the US constitution vs the many others comes from its greater alignment with those.

    Those govts seem to work best that are built by people who don't trust the other folks they'll be governing with. They go minimum, n leave some teeth in the sub-groups, for when the would-be overlords won't listen. Pushback gets authoritah thinking "Is inflicting this on those folks worth it?" Good for people who don't want to be inflicted on. Less good for grifters, apparatchacks, n true believers. Does make you ask: Who's this govt for?

  30. avatar Bubba says:

    The problem is that these localities are not legislatures, and have no authority to create law that overrides state or federal law.
    I didn’t vote for these assclowns to make law, so if I go into their county I’m subject to law I cannot predict and had no say in. F that.
    These whiners just don’t like the law of the land as created by a duly elected legislature, so they want to cry off and create their own little fiefdoms where they can play king of the castle.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email