Federal Preemption of gun laws - a good thing?

[nipster]

Here in my state (FLA) a few years ago, they passed a state law which preempts all local municipalities from creating laws which regulate firearms at all.

It used to be the state had laws, but municipalities could further restrict use and posession of firearms. It has actually worked out very well here.

I was thinking, would something like this be a good thing at the federal level.

At first glance, you would think: YES. But the more I think about it, I think: NO!

Positives: If you live in a really ridiculously overregulated state like LA, NY, MASS or places like DC or Chicago, you would end up in a better situation. Also the silly laws like New Jersey's hollow point law would go bye bye

Negatives: If your state allows something like open carry or has some very good gun law provisions, those could go away.

My thoughts also are, every time the federal government gets involved, they screw it up.

Thoughts on the subject?

 

[HKSmith]

The Federal Government has no authority to preempt state criminal laws. The states can pass any laws they like as long as they pass constitutional muster in the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. Some of the major issues in which the Supreme Court has upheld Federal pre-emption are attempts to limit access to publicly supported education or voting rights based on race or gender.

More recently, the Supreme Court has limited the right of state and local governments to regulate firearms possession (the Heller and McDonald Decisions). There are some who would argue that the Second Amendment is already a kind of Federal pre-emption law. However, the Heller decision made it clear that it didn't mean to interfere with state regulation of concealed carry, the regulation of commerce in firearms, prohibitions on convicted felons owning firearms, or the possession of particularly dangerous weapons. This decision was written by Justice Scalia, who is probably about as pro-gun a SC Justice as we'll see. So anyone who thinks the Second Amendment gives them the right to walk around New York City with a suppressed SMG under their coat may be disappointed.

 

[Aticus]

No, no a thousand times NO!

Pecos

 

[zoom6zoom]

The good thing about being a Dillon Rule state, like here in Virginia, is that you don't end up with a crazy quilt of laws, where something that's legal in one town gets you a felony just crossing over into the next county.

But keep the Feds out of state's rights.

 

[nipster]

The Federal Government has no authority to preempt state criminal laws. The states can pass any laws they like as long as they pass constitutional muster in the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court

I think the Civil War kind of proved that theory wrong.

Also the current drug laws prove that wrong, and closer to home, the National Firearms Act of 1968.

There are lots of federal laws which preempt state laws.

 

[AZretired]

FA 1968 deals with interstate transportation and importation of firearms which really does not effect state issues. State pre-emption keeps laws within the state the same. The feds have no right to interfere.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

 

[nipster]

FA 1968 deals with interstate transportation and importation of firearms which really does not effect state issues. State pre-emption keeps laws within the state the same. The feds have no right to interfere.

It also deals directly with manufacture, posession and tranfer of deemed NFA weapons such as SBS, SBR, Machine Guns, and as amended in 1986 banned manufacture of machine guns.

And have you already forgotten about the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and all the nonsense we had to deal with between 1994-2004.

 

[AZretired]

We weren't talking about 1994. But the feds supposedly get their authority for that and a lot of the other stuff they do (Obamacare!) By invoking the Commerce Clause. IMHO its all Unconstitutional!

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

 

[nipster]

We weren't talking about 1994. But the feds supposedly get their authority for that and a lot of the other stuff they do (Obamacare!) By invoking the Commerce Clause. IMHO its all Unconstitutional!

1994 aside, the 1968 and 1986 acts really did a lot more than you are letting on. The 1968 restricts NFA weapons. Lets the government decide who can and cannot have NFA weapons. The 1986, which forbids domestic production of machine guns for anything but military and police use.

 

[scooter123]

While I would applaud a national uniformity of firearms laws I just CANNOT bring myself to trust our current government to do it properly. The simple truth is that our government has a long and well established history of ignoring the Constitution and I don't see that changing.

 

[Poodle Soup]

Not all states need the same laws. One necessary law in Alaska could be completely ridiculous in Florida.

 

[nipster]

Not all states need the same laws. One necessary law in Alaska could be completely ridiculous in Florida.

I would agree with that.

Honestly the only thing that would be positive about a law like this, is it would end the stupid restrictions in places like Chicago and DC, and the hollow point law in NJ

 

[PDL]

Besides all the reasons already posted, what makes you think that the bad regulations would go away and only the good ones would stay. HP's could be banned everywhere with your federal approach.

And states are still free to interpret federal laws the way they want. Just look at the FOPA and NJ and NYC.

 

[jtpur]

What do you mean it worked well in FL. It did not which is why the FL courts stated some were denied equal protection because some Sheriff,s would not issue concealed carry permits.

 

[nipster]

What do you mean it worked well in FL. It did not which is why the FL courts stated some were denied equal protection because some Sheriff,s would not issue concealed carry permits.

Not sure where you get your information from.

Florida is, and has been a "SHALL ISSUE" state for quite some time.

The ONLY thing Sheriff's have a say in Florida is signing form 4's for NFA weapons. Some do, most dont. Apparently this is a problem nationwide. You can get around it with a Trust or Corp.

Sheriffs and CLEO's have zero say in the issuing of Concealed Weapons Permits in Florida.

 

[bluegrassarms]

I'm actually against the move to a national concealed carry law, to pick one issue of Federal preemption that's currently on the table. First off it's a matter of state's rights and the 10th Amendment. I can't be for state's rights when I disagree with a federal decree and against them when I like the decree. The best balance is when there aren't a lot of federal decrees period.

Second, while it would be useful for sure, I don't want to go down the road of the federal government deciding concealed carry or any more gun related issues than minimally necessary because when the political winds shift we could see serious curtailment of our rights. Right now Nancy Pelosi's constituents have no reason to be upset about CCDW laws in Kentucky but if we force them to accept ccdw via national decree then they most certainly will battle in DC to change the law.

These things are best handled through SCOTUS. I want the political control over "gun issues" as delegated, checked and balanced and otherwise as limited as possible. If we build too efficient of a system it can be used against us far too easily.

FWIW I don't see that the same as state preemption of local laws. States have always had far more broad sway over cities than the federal government is supposed to have over states, and the transaction costs of separate laws in each county are far higher than differences between states. Forget sorting 50 states, Kentucky alone has 120 counties.

State preemption has worked well on gun and other issues of liberty. Federal preemption is far more dangerous. It has done some very good things, like the Civil Rights Act, but the bar should be very high for it to be employed because it's also done a lot of bad things and is subject to tyranny of the majority. CCDW, HP ammunition etc. IMO do not rise to that level.

I certainly disagree with about everything in the People's Republic of Illinois, the HP law in New Jersey, etc., but would rather battle them in the courts and at the local level versus risking having rights in all the states curtailed later when the political winds shift.