This Is Why Gun Rights Preemption Matters
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 9 months ago
We’ve discussed it in the context of Jackson, Wyoming, where an out-of-control town council banned firearms in the city in spite of state laws. It’s happening in Asheville, N.C. as we speak, where posting against carrying firearms in Asheville parks violates state law.
Now we see that a proposed bill in Massachusetts would stop this behavior.
BOSTON — Gun-rights advocates are rallying behind a bill in the state Legislature that would prevent municipalities from imposing their own regulations on who can possess a firearm.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, an association working to protect Second Amendment rights, said communities are “essentially creating a patchwork of laws across the state, and soon it will be untenable if (the state doesn’t) get in control of it quickly.”
State Rep. James Miceli filed a bill that would ban municipalities and counties from “passing or enforcing ordinances or regulations concerning the lawful ownership, use, possession, transfer, purchase, receipt or transportation of weapons, antique weapons, ammunition or ammunition components.”
“I filed this bill because a lot of the Legislature strives for a balance between towns and the state government,” the Wilmington Democrat said. “There has to be uniformity. No one twisted my arm to do it. I think the bill makes sense.”
Supporters cite a new gun-licensing policy in Lowell that requires applicants to complete an approved safety course that includes a “live fire” component. Applicants seeking unrestricted licenses to carry their weapons in Lowell must also provide a “submit a written statement providing specific reasons why they want to be granted unrestricted access.”
Recall we discussed this, where collectivist police chief William Taylor of Lowell wants to review an essay you are forced to write before granting you the privilege of a handgun license.
This is why it matters. When a state recognizes certain freedoms, the only action a city, township or municipality can take if allowed to make rules of their own contradicting state law is to get more restrictive. State preemption is necessary to prevent more restrictive gun laws. Another way of saying it is granting permission to cities to make regulations more restrictive than state law can only result in one thing, i.e., regulations more restrictive than state law. This always means a loss of recognized rights.
Sadly, I predict the bill will fail. After all, this is Massachusetts. And when, for heaven’s sake, is Smith & Wesson going to leave that awful state?
On February 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm, Archer said:
Quick dig at how the article was written:
“State Rep. James Miceli filed a bill…”
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that he’s a Democrat. How might I know this, based on that short micro-sentence?
He’s filed a pro-gun bill, and the author didn’t report his party. If he were a Republican, he’d have the “(R-[district])” after his name, to ensure that readers are clear on exactly which party supports those Eeeeville gun rights in Massachusetts. If it’s a Democrat supporting such a bill, they run cover the Dem Party by “hiding the ‘D'”.
[UPDATE] Oh, look, I was right: “James “Jim” Miceli is an American Democratic politician, currently representing Middlesex County’s 19th district in the Massachusetts State Legislature.” [italics added]