The Pros and Cons of city pre-emption

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...are-losing-the-power-to-regulate-guns/284220/

The article discusses how high crime cities want the power to have local gun bans and the arguments against it.

Logically, the criminals won't care about local gun bans but it would affect law abiding citizens. Yes, there was a CCW idiot as bad example. So what.

The counter point is that the right is universal and that the focus is really not to allow legal carry at all and certainly to return to keeping the wrong kind of folks from legally owning guns.

I note that in TX, one gubernatorial candidate proclaims to be all for gun rights but wants city preemption. I supposed we should let cities control other basic rights - :rolleyes:

Urban vs. rural values, etc. - guns as totems of the population whose values are not those of the city hipster. You can wear your gun when you raise Kale for the hipster to eat but you can't wear your gun when you deliver the Kale to the city or take the kids to town to see the city-slickers.
 
A few years ago, the NRA backed out of an Illinois CCW proposal because an amendment was introduced that allowed individual cities and counties to opt out. The problem is, I could be completely legal in County A, but if I take a wrong turn into County B, I'd be a felon.

A lot of gun folks didn't read that far and threw a big fit, but the law would have been a disaster if it was enacted that way.
 
City bans, church bans, mall and sporting event bans were all attempts to make CCW look pretty useless and diminish those getting the permits and where they could go.

Opposing bad laws made sense. You want to empower major population centers and venues.
 
"city preemption" or even "county preemption" is a horrible idea.

We all think of it in terms of firearms, but think about it as if it applied to automobiles....

Right turn on red is legal in Adamsville, but if you go to Bakersfield you get a $500 fine.
Having a passenger is legal in Bakersfield, but illegal in Chesterfield.
Chesterfield says it's perfectly fine to have non-stock tires, but Daviston says they have to be the same size as the manufacturer equipped the car with at the factory.

How is someone from another town, or from another state supposed to know and be obedient to all these laws in all these different places?

Certain things NEED to be uniform across a state (if not the nation).
 
4th point makes excellent observations. How about we authorize cities to opt out of other civil rights, going back to segregated bathrooms and lunch counters?

The 2nd Amendment is a CIVIL RIGHT and local entities should not be allowed to "opt out" of it any more than they can opt out of the Emancipation Proclamation! :eek:
 
GEM said:
The Pros and Cons of city pre-emption
Click to expand...

There really isn't that much pro/con on either side IMO. Its more about the groups of politicians debating how has the authority. While it is true that there will always be a few foolish elected reps that think they are smarter then the others, be it at state or local lever. In theory at least, there should be little difference between a state law establishing standard "X" or say the League of Municipalities requiring "X" be adopted by its member municipalities state wide. The only difference from enforcement view would be a state law violation, vs local code violation.
 
Major urban areas, firearms....

Id support allowing cities or counties to "opt out" of CCW or gun carry issues if they choose but I could also see the major problems it would create. :mad:
I lived in PA from 1995 to 2000 and had a valid CCW in the last 2 years. IAW the sheriffs dept & state laws, the PA permit was valid everywhere but the city of Philadelphia PA. They were exempt from the concealed carry laws.
I can see the need to have protection with a firearm but I can also see the need of local LE/homeland security to maintain law & order(public safety).

Clyde
 
I can also see the need of local LE/homeland security to maintain law & order(public safety).
Click to expand...
So, the blood will start flowing in the streets if concealed carry is allowed in urban areas? :D

I might can see some limited discretion, provided violation was just an offense subject to fine. The problem is the slippery slope which is why some places are now at the bottom of the ditch.
 
For every city that would nix a state ban on CCW or allow hi-cap magazines, there are a dozen that would ban state-wide CCW, magazines, etc.

I'd much rather work to get my state to change a law than to work to get the 30 or so municipalities within a morning's drive of my house to change theirs.
 
How does allowing cities to ban law abiding citizens protect the public order.
That is a tremendous capitulation and acceptance of antigun rhetoric.

If I live San Antonio - I am a risk to public safety. I drive under the freeway to buy a house in Helotes - then I am upstanding?

How silly!
 
A lot of gun folks didn't read that far and threw a big fit,
Click to expand...

A lot of folks don't read that far no matter what the legislation is. I suspect most support for legislation comes from the title, and a newspaper story saying the title and the goal are at least kinda sorta similar.

That is a tremendous capitulation and acceptance of antigun rhetoric.

If I live San Antonio - I am a risk to public safety. I drive under the freeway to buy a house in Helotes - then I am upstanding?
Click to expand...

Even more than that- the basic premise behind restricting a concealed carry permit is that a holder is somehow a danger to society period. That at some level there is a dark purpose to carrying a firearm for protection.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I note that in TX, one gubernatorial candidate proclaims to be all for gun rights but wants city preemption in Austin.
Click to expand...
Fixed it for ya. ;)
Glenn E. Meyer said:
If I live San Antonio - I am a risk to public safety. I drive under the freeway to buy a house in Helotes - then I am upstanding?
Click to expand...
San Antonio ain't nuthin'. The potential complexity of navigating the DFW metroplex boggles the mind. :eek: There are some places where you can cross 3 different municipal boundaries within a mile or so, with no indications other than the color of the street signs changing.

Also, before one assumes that our generally conservative political culture will prevent such local pre-emption ordinances from being enacted, I can name two Dallas suburbs that will probably enact them in a hurry. They will remain nameless, but let me drop a hint: one is small and central, and the other is large and far north. (Those familiar with politics around here can probably guess which two I'm discussing.)
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Opposing bad laws made sense. You want to empower major population centers and venues.
Click to expand...

I share your sentiment, and would like all laws to be consistent with a robust protection of rights.

However, there are counter-examples. Ohio's first CC law wasn't very good in lots of ways, including confusing direction about how to handle carried arms in a car, privacy violations, and cities that didn't recognize the authority of the new laws.

With time, the most egregious faults have been addressed as public anxiety about CC diminished. Slippery slopes can work both ways.
 
Let's not forget that 'urban' is really just a euphemism for 'dark skinned.' Taking a historical view of gun control in the United States this measure has the same aim as all other gun control measures ever enacted or proposed: To keep guns out of the hands of the poor, especially minorities. Thank goodness these preemption laws are being fought!
 
Last edited:
I think our candidate in TX was discussing how Houston wanted to do such, IIRC. Might be wrong but that's what the candidate seemed to be indicating.

Not a big deal though. City preemption is fundamentally racist and a ploy to make concealed carry so difficult as to be useless for most.
 
IMHO the Main Point of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and 60s was that right belong to the individual, not to the jurisdiction or whoever's in charge at the time. And Cafeteria Constitutionalism and autonomous city-states have no place in our system.
When I argued this point with a lieberal acquaintance I used this example:How about if some cities or states were given waivers on using illegally obtained evidence or respecting defendants 5th Amendment rights or right to counsel.
Would the end justify the means?
 
#s....

Once again, members take posts to extremes. :rolleyes:
My point is the sheer #s. More people carrying guns(legal or illegal) would create more gun crimes or lethal force incidents. It's the #s.
If 1,000,000 citizens get CCWs do you think that 0 CCW holders would be involved in a lethal force incident a calendar year later? :confused:
No.
My point is that citizens(voters) should decide how & what they want in their community.
If you disagree with the city ordinances, laws or political leaders then do not go there!
There are local cities & towns that I think are corrupt, mismanaged or high crime areas. I don't live there, I don't spend $$$ there, I don't vote there.
 
ClydeFrog said:
My point is the sheer #s. More people carrying guns(legal or illegal) would create more gun crimes. It's the #s.
If 1,000,000 citizens get CCWs do you think that 0 CCW holders would be involved in a lethal force incident a calendar year later?
No.
Click to expand...


I would love, absolutely LOVE, to see ONE SINGLE credible source for that "theory". You won't find one. Sure, the Brady Bunch has a few, if you want to cite theirs. Hardly "credible" though.

A very strong argument can be made that CC reduces crime. More guns equals less crime.

Unfortunately, correlation does not prove causality. There is, however, a strong correlation in many cases.

The opposite (your theory) has no such correlation.
 
Cities do not decide the basic human rights.

It's that simple.

Also, of course a large number will generate an absolute greater number of incidents. So only states with two guys and a sheep should Concealed Carry?

The large TX cities show no increase of crime from CHLs.

Come on - you are being wonderfully illogical and arguing strongly antigun positions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top