Gun rights advocates, by and large, are also big supporters of preemption. The idea that gun control laws cannot and should not be passed by local governments is important, if for no other reason than to keep people from finding themselves in trouble because they stopped for gas in the wrong city while traveling through the state.
A patchwork of various gun control laws is navigable for most people when it’s a city-by-city thing. It’s bad enough on a state-by-state basis, but when you have to check every little town you’re traveling through? It’s ridiculous.
But a lot of local governments seem to want to do just that.
Interestingly, I came across a student op-ed from the University of Miami in Ohio that seems to get that, even if the writer is pretty anti-gun overall.
The general public and the state are not supportive of the cities’ attempts to pass stricter gun laws. The current court case, Columbus v. Ohio, showcases this. When Columbus attempted to enact a law putting a cap on magazine purchases and requiring guns to be safely stored out of children’s reach, the lower trial courts stopped the application of this ordinance, claiming its restrictions were unconstitutional.
Not only is Ohio fighting stricter regulations, but it is actively passing legislation that supports looser gun laws. Showcasing this sentiment is the passage of Senate Bill 58, which prevents banks from tracking when people purchase firearms and prohibits gun owners from having to buy special insurance. With even looser gun regulations being passed, it is obvious that Ohio and its citizens enjoy their gun rights. If these rights were to be challenged in any way, the citizens would vehemently protest to their representatives. These lawmakers, who want to be reelected, will be persuaded not to support more restrictive legislation.
Overall, giving cities the right to create their own gun regulations will not reduce the amount of gun violence in urban areas. If people wish to own something illegal in the city, all they have to do is travel outside city limits, buy it and bring it back. For gun violence to be reduced, a statewide initiative that supports stricter gun regulations would have to be put in place. However, you risk running into the same problem.
This is completely accurate. This is 100 percent true, and I applaud the author for seeing that, even if she gets it wrong on plenty else. However, she doesn’t go far enough in her criticisms of locally passed gun control.
First, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you believe gun control is good and necessary. I don’t, but roll with me on this for a moment.
All a local government can do is pass misdemeanors. That means a fine that can’t be above a certain limit and less than a year in prison. It also does nothing to prevent someone from going into a gun store and buying a gun lawfully afterward. Even if the state decided to extend the prohibited list to include those who violate local gun control laws, that wouldn’t apply if they simply move to another state.
Meanwhile, the police will have to deal with local ordinance violators who will be back out on the streets in no time at all and still able to buy guns lawfully.
Now, couple this all with the fact that criminals don’t actually obey laws in general, including gun control laws, and what you end up with is a case of local lawmakers trying to look like they’re doing something about violent crime without having to actually do anything about violent crime.
The only reason to pass local gun control is either so they can keep their jobs or move into a higher office.
That’s it. That’s what this really boils down to.
Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.
Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
