How many states have Pre-emption Laws pertaining to guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
I see that citizen's in Los Angeles are suing over the new ban on black rifles and magazines saying that state law pre-empts the local cities laws. This appears to be a good strategy if legal.





I'm wondering how many states have state-premepmption laws when it comes to guns?







http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84801971/







Gun rights supporters, county sheriffs sue L.A. over ammunition rules

Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

A semi-automatic hunting rifle with a high-capacity detachable magazine.

By Emily Alpert Reyes

October 23, 2015, 4:14 p.m.

Gun rights supporters are suing Los Angeles over its ban on possessing firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, once again taking the battle over municipal gun control to the courts. The new law was modeled on similar, earlier ordinances in San Francisco and Sunnyvale. Federal judges had rejected requests to stop those laws from being enforced -- one reason L.A. leaders said they were confident their new law was on solid ground. More recently, a federal appeals court upheld bans on such ammunition magazines in New York and Connecticut, saying they did not violate the 2nd Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. At a July rally outside City Hall, Councilman Paul Krekorian declared that if gun rights activists wanted to sue the city, “bring it on.”

Now the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. and other critics are doing exactly that. This time around, however, attorneys said they are challenging the ban on the grounds that it is preempted by California law, not on the basis of the 2nd Amendment as they did in the Sunnyvale and San Francisco cases. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, argues that the ban “contributes to a patchwork quilt of laws” that people who travel across the area “must attempt to navigate under threat of criminal penalties.”
 
Utah has full preemption. I wish they'd go all the way and add personal consequences for those passing illegal local laws, rules, and policies a la Florida.
 
Washington has reserved the right to be the sole makers of firearms law.
City of Seattle didn't learn their lesson the last time they tried to make DIY
firearms related law. This time ,they are trying to charge a $25.00/per firearm
and a $.o5 per round tax on every gun and ammo sale. Pure and simple liberal B/S.

........................... Jack
 
Montana does but it appears it will be tested soon. Missoula is in the process of passing an ordinance requiring background checks on private purchases or transfers within the city. The ordinance appears to be in violation of Montana law (MCA 45-8-351). AG seems to agree.
 
Idaho does as well and the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (ISAA) has worked hard to get every jurisdiction with illegal ordinances and signs in line except 2 I believe who will have to be taken to court to comply. Preemption is really nice so you don't have to memorize different laws in the same State.
 
In the case of L.A. it wouldn't matter if there was pre-emption in CA. The L.A.(and S.F.) councils would still pass whatever crazy laws they wanted to.
 
morcey2 remarked,

Utah has full preemption. I wish they'd go all the way and add personal consequences for those passing illegal local laws, rules, and policies a la Florida.

That's an interesting tidbit. Can you point me in a direction for more information?

Mods, can we explore this a little in this "General Gun Discussions" subforum?

I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of those arrogant local lawmakers thrown in the pokey for their self-important attitudes. I'm not being vindictive, just noting that if thee and me break the law, there are punitive consequences.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
As noted above, Ohio does, and Cleveland has gotten multiple raps across the muzzle courtesy of state preemption.

Not only that, but the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association has advised its members to NOT enforce facially invalid, state preempted city "law", lest they pierce their own qualified immunity and be sued as individuals.
 
I was told several years ago bt a man I worked with that owning reloading equipment was illeagle in some counties around LA. The man was a gun owner and reloader. I don't know if this is true or perhaps no longer true. No law passed in CA surprises me anymore.
 
morcey2 remarked,



That's an interesting tidbit. Can you point me in a direction for more information?

Mods, can we explore this a little in this "General Gun Discussions" subforum?

I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of those arrogant local lawmakers thrown in the pokey for their self-important attitudes. I'm not being vindictive, just noting that if thee and me break the law, there are punitive consequences.

Terry, 230RN
Statute:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

Relevant section:

a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature’s occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.
(b) If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.

Hopefully that shows up correctly.

Matt
 
Colorado State Preemption Statute

29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution, the article referred to as the
state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which
include the right to defend their lives and liberties;

(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental
right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of
article II of the state constitution;

(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the
fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);

(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state
with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm
possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the
general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some
jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and
ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law
solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular
county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis
for denial of equal treatment under the law;

(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they
may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the
law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general
assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and
ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed
in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.
 
Arizona has state preemption. One of the areas relates to a total prohibition of gun registration by any lessor entity. A few years ago, a courthouse (In I think in Kingman, AZ) maintained a record (Who and make model and serial number) of handguns checked into temporary storage by those entering the building. The AG considered it a form of registration and came down on them to destroy all records or face a fine.
 
Don't all states have pre-emption from the constitutional level? The 2nd doesn't specify "congress" like the 1st, so that "shall not" would apply to all law-making/enforcing bodies. Same reason you can't be cruelly tortured or jailed without trial for state level crimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top