The Pros and Cons of city pre-emption

[Fishing_Cabin]

I suppose it's theoretically possible for the State to tell their subdivisions they're preempting 1A issues and take over all the parades, protests, and other stuff that goes with it. When they do it with firearms they tell 'em laws on carry and ownership, etc. lies with them, and commonly only leave regulating some of the discharge of firearms to the local level.

The connection to parades, protest and religion (street preaching permit, or temp building/fire permit for tent meetings) is a good point. It would be odd that the localities have no say, but, I doubt it would be a "full" pre-empting as some seem to like. There will probably be some wiggle room for discharge penalties at the local level, or firearm hunting restrictions imposed by some municipalities.

What concerns me about this is what trade offs are people willing to give up in order for there to be state pre-emption?


eta:

Establish it as a full fledged civil right on par with jury duty, voting, and so on.

There again though, there are some restrictions one way or another on those. My employer is in no way required to allow me to vote on paid time, nor are they required to let me carry a firearm on their property if they choose not to. Nor are they required to pay me to support my own candidate by trying to win support from other employees or customers. I doubt that state pre-emption will change that.

I believe that the idea of state pre-emption is to eliminate restrictions, but I don't see how that is going to work out in real life. There are and will be restrictions of some level, at both local, state, and federal level.