Preemption is another battle heading our way. The gun rights infringers posit this as “local control” or “local government.” They talk about all the other things that conservatives want done at a local level so why not “gun safety” laws?
It is another method of lawfare. It is another method of making it difficult for people to carry for fear of accidentally stepping over an invisible line.
As an example, the state of Massachusetts as a requirement for an FOID. You need a FOID or CTL in order to possess a firearm or ammunition in the state. There are no exceptions for “just visiting.”
A few years ago a student had a fit when he saw a civil war musket ball on his teachers desk. He was arrested for having “ammunition component”. This went to trial and the judge found that the professor had indeed broken the law and that having “ammunition component(s)” was the same as having ammunition which is the same as having an firearm.
Jail time.
Say you were visiting a friend in VT and went shooting. You had a blast and went through a few hundred rounds. You say thank you to your friend for letting you shoot their guns and their ammunition and home to PA.
During your trip through Massachusetts you get pulled over for speeding. During the interaction the cop sees a shell casing that has fallen out of your jacket. It got caught there when you were shooting. He asks you what it is and you explain and he arrests you.
All because you traveled over an invisible line into a place with different laws.
Many states have a preemption statute in regards to firearms. These preemption statutes say that a local government can not make laws regarding firearms. Some just say laws that are at odds with state laws.
Not all states.
This leads to the case where laws can change not only as you travel from state to state, but could change as you travel within a state at county, city or town lines. A Democrat in Tennessee just introduced a bill which would require you to have a carry permit if the area you are in is a metropolitan area with a population over 500,000 OR a county with a population over 900,000.
The standard infringers want to remove preemption for the state statutes. If they can do this it means that any rinky-dink village, town, or city can pass a “regulation” that makes some it more difficult to carry or own a firearm.
Now most of these would be struck down in court. Unfortunately each and every one of them would have to be individually challenged in court. And as soon as one was knocked down another would be put in its place.
As long as our representatives are able to pass laws that are unconstitutional without consequences they will continue to do so. And “voting them out” isn’t enough. Do you think that Nancy or Burnie really care if they get reelected? They have made millions as representatives living on salaries that should not have created that much wealth.
Just as a side note, I’ve had the privilege of working with a number of SES people in the government. They get paid $135k-$204k. A US Senator or Representative gets paid $174,000 per year. The ones that I worked with were rather high up in the SES pay scale. None of them were millionaires.
AOC managed to go from a poor broke bartender to a millionaire in just over two years on $174,000/year living in DC buying at least one very expensive car and maintaining a residence in her home district.
If you hear people talking about preemption, know that it is good when it comes to gun laws.
The doublethink is decades old:
“We need uniform national gun laws!”
“States, counties, cities, and HOAs need to have their own, more restrictive policies!”
Both positions coming from the same lobbying groups, of course.
Works for illegal aliens, why not for guns?
.
And, people like AOC, Bernie, Pelosi, or even the 0bamas are not still in the public eye for the money. Influence is even more addicting than either money or power.
Here in Orygun, about 20 years (2005?) ago IIRC, a proposed law was on the ballot that would have made many things related to schools, not the actual buildings, a “gun free zone”. The effect of this law passing could have been something like:
You are sitting in a McD’s eating. A school activities bus pulls up and disgorges its load of ravenous students. Too late. The minute that bus pulled into the parking lot that entire business became a “gun free zone” and if you are carrying… too f&&g bad for you. YOU are in violation and if discovered could feel the full weight of the law. That one didn’t pass. The ability to make movable checkerboard boundaries are a gift to anti-self defense supporters.
Actually, MA does not have a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID). IL does, though.
They do have a Firearms ID card, which is nearly useless and only applies to certain long guns and Mace/pepper spray.
The FID card is not necessarily a prerequisite to getting a License to Carry (LTC). Unfortunately, in the People’s Republic of MA, each CLEO (or designee) has pretty much absolute control over gets an LTC.
MA has been a “may issue” state for evah, although changes may have been made subsequent to the Bruen decision.
And, as awa has noted, the idea that the exercise of certain Rights is affected when you cross an invisible line is ridiculous. Made up rights, like homosexual marriage, abortion, and driving, should, like real Rights, be accorded the full faith and credit in all States. Firearms possession, etc.–not so much. Sigh.