State's law of preemption hobbles cities' attempt to address gun violence

[SecularMotion]

What if we could significantly reduce gun violence and deaths in large cities like Seattle and Tacoma by changing a single state law in Olympia?

A little background. According to the book “Private Gun, Public Health” – written by Dr. David Hemenway, the director of injury prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health – the states with the most comprehensive gun legislation, like closing the gun show loophole, have one-sixth the level of gun violence of those states like Florida that have the most lenient gun laws.

Washington has some of the most lenient gun laws and has been given an F by the national Brady Campaign. This state permits things that even Texas forbids, such as open carry of a loaded firearm without a permit.

But there is one state gun law that trumps all the rest: the state law of preemption, or RCW 9.41.290. It states that “the state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation. Local laws that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted, regardless of the nature of the code.”

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/06/07/2172215/states-law-of-preemption-hobbles.html#storylink=cpy

[bupkus]

1. Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Let the state preempt gun laws. Local laws should ban ammunition. Render guns useless. Let's see how long that one will take to work its way through the courts.

[mvccd1000]

2. Makes one wonder where Hemenway finds (or creates) his statistics...

... because they sure don't agree with the ones provided by the FBI. In fact, I remember pointing out in a thread on DU2 that Arizona and Illinois fell right next to each other (and right in the middle of the nation) for gun crimes, despite being on polar opposites when it comes to gun control laws.

State preemption is a smart law; it prevents reactionary governments from administratively creating criminals out of regular citizens who cross city boundaries as they travel through metropolitan areas.

[Starboard Tack]

14. How do they create criminals if they post signs at city limits?

Towns are collections of houses. Do you want armed strangers walking through your house? Nothing like Big Brother taking over is there? Like the Feds pre-empting state enacted medical marijuana laws.

[gejohnston]

22. not the same thing

the Feds banned pot in the 1930s. While state laws allow medical marijuana, it does not change the federal ban. No one is walking around in anyone's house.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Prohibition doesn't work. House is a metaphor for town, a place people live in.

[Glaug-Eldare]

27. Who would these laws keep out, and who would ignore them? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

30. People who want to engage in any public behavior the town deems unsuitable.

Carrying loaded guns around, smoking, drinking alcohol, littering, fucking in the street, whatever the town decides. Usually, those who ignore the rules pay a price. It's called the rule of law in a civilized society. When in Rome...

[gejohnston]

33. When in Rome

go watch a slave try to kill another slave for entertainment while your government launched wars for empire and profit. How civilized.

[Starboard Tack]

37. That's not quite what it means GE. LOL

BTW, Rome is one of my favorite cities. I spent six years there and never saw one gladiator. But I did become a Roman.

[gejohnston]

40. I know, but couldn't help it

My son loves Roman history. Me? I honor my Pict ancestors.

[gejohnston]

29. Never said I supported Prohibition

simply stated what is. Of course it is a metaphor. As soon as one can walk around their town in their underwear without getting arrested, it will be a good metaphor.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I guess you don't spend much time on the beach

[gejohnston]

32. With my Scotch Irish ancestory?

skin cancer is not my thing. I have found areas near beaches suck for diving and fishing.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Ah Florida. I remember it well

Lots of sandy cove, rocky beaches out here. Great diving and the fishing is good.

[beevul]

59. Its an inaccurate and misleading metaphor...

Since one has generally soul ownership of one, and not the other.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Nobody owns my soul. That would be way too Faustian for me.

Kind of ironic, actually, but I currently live in an unincorporated town that is owned by one person. Sometimes the exception proves the rule.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. "Towns are collections of houses. Do you want armed strangers walking through your house?"

So how's the traffic in your living room?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. States without preemption are simply minefields to ensnare average people.

How do you expect local more restrictive laws to be effective at all when someone can literally drive 10-20 minutes to obtain or do the same thing without breaking the law? It's like the anti-gun states that whine about ease of gun accees in bordereing states ruining their anti-gun utopias... except on a much smaller scale.

Lack of premtion was a bitch before Ohio got it a few years ago. Guns might be among the most, if not THE most, regulated common items in regards to the number of laws governing them. Basically, your OP proposes a situation where you're expecting law abiding gun owners to know and follow literally dozens of sets of laws if they wish to remain law abiding with absolutley zero effective crime reduction in return. It's a stupid legal theory that taxes society without benefit.

In Ohio about 5yrs after preemption, Columbus, Cincinatti and Cleveland are STILL pushing and suing to get thier private little assault weapon bans back. They still illegally arrest people for laws that are preemptive invalid and get owned in court by the plaintiffs. Do they really believe that a stipid AWB possesion laws make them ANY safer when somone who actually wasnts an assault weapon can drive 15 minutes out of the city and legally buy it?

The first test of any law regarding any political topic I choose to support must answer the following:
Does the law impose a restriction of behavior, freedom or rights on individuals? (Are we losing rights)
If yes, does the law have a real and measureable positive effect on society? (What do we gain from those lost rights)
Is the observed measurable benefit obtained using the least restrivive means possible? (does our loss of rights have good ROI)

[Starboard Tack]

15. Sorry, but average people don't carry guns on their person.

These laws are not about being restrictive, they are for public safety. Nobody is forcing you to go to Cleveland. Do you find it restrictive when people ask you to remove your shoes when you enter their house? It's called respect.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. But they may have the gun in their car.

A person could have the gun, field stripped, in a locked container in the trunk of the car, ammunition in a separate locked container and still run afoul of some local law in a town that they were merely driving through on the interstate. Premption stops that by requiring all laws in a state to be the same.

[Starboard Tack]

20. It would be very simple to exclude interstate corridors from local gun carry laws.

Let's not exaggerate. Do you know of anyone getting busted for what you describe? If not, file with the "rivers of blood", "fire extinguishers are like guns", and all the other nonsense folk come up with.

[Glaug-Eldare]

21. Except that they won't be.

Those who want demand comprehensive gun control will not exclude one square inch unless a court forces them to.

As for not getting busted, the very existence of the laws is a problem, unless you're advocating breaking the law discreetly. I want to be in 100% compliance with the law, not 80% compliance without getting caught.

[sarisataka]

23. It happens...

Rather regularly in NYC where travelers who are FAA compliant and become delayed through no fault of their own run afoul of NYC laws.

Without preemption that could happen while driving to visit somewhere and stopping for gas.

[Starboard Tack]

46. I'm not following you here

How can they run afoul of NYC laws because a flight is delayed? But, as I said, safe transportation should be allowed. I a weapon is broken down in a lock-box and ammo is secured separately, then why would there be a problem?
There is a middle ground that can be reached, without dividing the country along gun carrying lines. That's what we should work toward. Otherwise, all you guys who like to carry are going to end up living in Teabagger towns, which doesn't sound like much fun to me.

[gejohnston]

50. because NYPD

have assholes who should be going after real criminals, which requires were, instead of violating federal law and hassling hunters and Olympic target shooters.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Too much overreaction going on all round IMO

Have there been incidents in NYC involving hunters and Olympic target shooters?

[sarisataka]

57. That is what has happened. I thought is was discussed here but may be confused with another

It seems according to NYC law you are not permitted to have a hand gun even if it is locked in a TSA approved container if you are in possession of your luggage

I recall at least two instances where a person traveling either missed a flight or or a connecting outbound is delayed by weather. The airline cannot keep the luggage (not sure if by rule or policy) so the traveler has to take their luggage a stay in a hotel. Upon returning to the airport and declaring the firearm, as required they are arrested for illegal possession.

This is where I become leery of no pre-emption and 'sane gun laws'. People trying to faithfully follow the laws get caught in a catch-22. The result is they usually plead guilty to a misdemeanor, rather than face the expense of a trial far from home, and forfeit their property even though they followed the federal requirements.

I know many on 'my side' would disagree but I would not be adverse to a federal level law allowing reciprocity and clearly spelling out what 'further restrictions' local communities may enact and how a traveler is to be made aware of any local laws.

I do agree that there is some middle ground short of east of the Mississippi no gun ownership, west anything goes.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Seems like it would be easy enough to set up a secure system at the airport.

Obviously, it is causing some frustration, but ironing out the kinks shouldn't be too difficult. Ultimately, in situations like that, it would seem the Feds need to make sure it all works smoothly without ruffling any feathers. It's all about tolerance and working together, which is not a strong suit amongst politicians, unfortunately. Reasonable voices should be heard and reason should prevail.

[sarisataka]

62. You got it

It's all about tolerance and working together, which is not a strong suit amongst politicians, unfortunately

I see very few Republicans or Democrats in office. I class most of them as 'Politicians'. A breed that seeks power for its own sake and adopts a name to achieve such.

Reasonable voices should be heard and reason should prevail.

We can all keep trying

[Clames]

64. No, not easy.

Chain of Custody alone would take months to possibly several years to hammer out because of the lawyers involved. Easier and reasonable would be better Federal laws that preempt states with laws like NY's.

[Starboard Tack]

65. There's nothing like a positive attitude for getting things done.

I find life much easier by seeking out places that suit me, rather than trying to change those that don't. Same thing with relationships.

[Clames]

67. Real world experience gets things done much faster, better.

I find it easier being able to comprehend issues before they are a problem rather than waiting for them to pop up. Positive attitude means squat when dealing with the law.

[Tejas]

42. LOL!

[Starboard Tack]

26. So should those towns have no rights to limit speeding either?

Let the state decide, a bunch of legislators who don't live there. No thanks. There is no right to carry a gun everywhere. Life is not all about ROI. For some it is about living in a nice peaceful place away from all the madness of ROI and guns and all kinds of crap.

[Glaug-Eldare]

28. The Constitution is silent on the subject of speeding

and it would be completely within a state's power to enact a 5mph statewide limit, or abolish speed limits. But firearms are another story. The scope of the RKBA is still being defined, but even so, breaking preemption is going to be abused as far as it possibly can. I think a LOT of people forget that carry is not the only issue involving guns outside the home. I've never carried, because it's illegal here, and our Jim Crow permit system is designed to exclude most citizens. What DOES affect me, though, are local regulations on the simple transportation of unloaded firearms. We have enough problems with grandfathered local laws and discretionary "gun-free zones" which may or may not make it a criminal act to drive on the highway with an unloaded, cased rifle in your trunk.

[Starboard Tack]

35. Fair enough, but

I don't see why towns shouldn't have rights to exclude carrying and make an exception for secured weapons in transit. Writing that exclusion into state law should not be a problem. I don't care what unwelcome thing passes through my town, as long as it isn't toxic. Just don't stop and everybody is happy.

[Glaug-Eldare]

39. In the event carry is ruled to be unprotected by 2A,

I'd respect the decision (while agitating for legislative remedy), and states would be empowered to prohibit carry, or delegate the decision to do so on local governments. I expect that some municipality would go too far and attempt to prohibit transportation of all firearms, resulting in a civil rights lawsuit. The established right to own firearms, combined with the established right to travel, would likely render any such law unenforceable. That'd pretty much maintain the status quo here, but at that point, the bigger problem would be preventing Congress from prohibiting carry nationwide, overriding various state constitutions in the process.

Ahh...it's such a pleasant experience to have a discussion while others simply...argue.

[Starboard Tack]

47. I don't see this as an unsolvable problem.

Reasonable men come up with reasonable solutions. The issue for gun owners is freedom, civil rights, RKBA. The issue for the rest is public safety. A very tiny minority wants to eliminate all guns from society - that's the reality.
Let the state have limited preemption, including safe transportation through gun-free zones. With today's technology, it would be very easy to keep an updated map defining all gun-free zones. If your average GPS can tell you where every PizzaHut and Starbucks is, they can sure as hell tell you where you are allowed, or not allowed to sport your weapons. This isn't rocket science and really doesn't need to be a divisive issue. We have a huge country. Let people choose how they want to live.
I have lived in the hills of West Virginia and loved waking up to the sounds of hunters in the woods. I have also lived on the lower east side of NYC and did not enjoy waking up to the sounds of Saturday night specials being fired in the neighborhood.

[gejohnston]

49. GPS works OK

on the ocean and desert, but I have been unimpressed with it on roads. Some GPS maps show roads where they are not. They show my road as not being a dead end. Unfortuately, some folks can't see the forest at night before they crash into a tree in front of my house.

[Starboard Tack]

53. LOL I know what you mean

But if I were using GPS for this purpose, I would make sure it is up to date.

[gejohnston]

55. not so much out of date

the road was never extended. They don't crash in my yard, they crash into the forest.

[Clames]

66. GPS systems available to the public...

...lack the necessary resolution, with the best being aided by cellular technologies to make up for the gaps. Should it be incumbent on everyone who CCW's to have a special GPS reader on them as well? No, not reasonable. Who would have responsibility of keeping the information up to date? Google? Garmin? The State? The Individual? Not rocket science but you need to have a lot more understanding of the technical and personal ramifications of such a suggestion.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. There is constitutional right to any minimum or maximum dx/dt.

No one is talking about just people who carry guns. But to own a gun it is very common to transport it to and from gun shops, gunsmiths, shooting ranges, hunting trips, and yes... even some people who carry them daily. To do many f these tasks may require driving through several townships or jurisdiction.

Knowing ALL gun laws of every jurisdiction you might find yourself in is certainly an onerous task.

[Starboard Tack]

36. I agree.

I support the rights of townships to prohibit personal carry and transportation of loaded weapons. I have no problem with safe transportation through gun free zones. That seems to be a reasonable compromise to me.

[hack89]

41. The issue is Constitutional rights.

should towns have the ability to limit abortion, ban gay marriage or institute poll taxes on voters with the wrong color skin?

Civil liberties are universal - they cannot be left to the whim of every state and town. Your civil rights should not depend on where you are in America.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Sorry, but public safety is a local issue. This is not about civil rights.

You have the right to keep your guns, but not to bear them everywhere. Why shouldn't the citizens of the community decide what is best for them? SCOTUS needs to make this clear.
Gay marriage, abortion and poll taxes have zero to do with this issue, but if they did, they are not public safety issues.

[hack89]

45. So the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with civil liberties? Really? nt

[Starboard Tack]

48. The BoR has much to do with civil liberties, you know that

The right to carry is not universal and needs to be more clearly defined. Obviously, there is much division over this issue because one side sees it as a civil rights issue and the other side as a public safety issue. No matter which side one is on, there are reasonable solutions to be found, without the need to politicize and polarize the issue. I am on both sides of this btw, and that's why I'm here. I think there are many like me, who feel strongly about individual freedoms and also feel strongly about public safety. We don't want to have to choose one over the other, but if it came down to it, I'll take public safety over my own perception of personal safety, any day. It's all about the concept of "the greater good" trumps every time. A hard pill to swallow, especially for the inhabitants of Coventry or Belgrade.

[hack89]

51. You must love the Patriot act then.

the perfect example of putting public safety before civil rights.

Civil rights always trump public safety - when the state takes a right from me or you it is gone forever. That is the nature of government power. That is what the BoR is all about - a bright line delineating basic civil liberties that the state cannot touch.

[Starboard Tack]

52. I hate the Patriot Act, which has nothing to do with public safety

If you can't see that I am striving to keep the individual right (I don't regard it really as a civil right, kind of oxymoronic) and maintain public safety. I believe the citizens of a town have rights too, in terms of behavior in public.
If you don't like that town's restrictions, you should have the right to pass through with all your "unwelcome" possessions. No local law should be able to stop you from transiting their township to get to your range or hunting area. By the same token, that same township should have the right not to be invaded by a few hundred Teabaggers carrying M-15s and sidearms. Live and let live, my friend.

[hack89]

56. Of course it is a civil liberty - that is what the BoR delineates.

and no - towns and states cannot limit enumerated civil liberties based on their perception of "public safety" or "community standards" or "tradition". That is the exact logic that gave us the Patriot Act. Groups of people do not have rights. Rights are purely individual and should never be at the mercy of the majority. Would you support a town denying the right of guy people to marry because it does not fit their idea of how "decent" people behave in public? What if a town does not want an abortion clinic - can they ban it?

There should be a single standard and it should be the most permissive - a true progressive should support the expansion of personal liberty over government power.

[SGMRTDARMY]

4. Citing Hemenway and Brady?

Really? Thats rich.

[ileus]

5. should read : Preemption hobbles city elites from punsihing legal owners.

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. Preemption makes it reasonably possible to obey the law

One of the most important aspects of state preemption is that it makes it possible for gun owners to know the law, which is the first step toward obeying it. If counties and municipalities in Washington were authorized to regulate guns, it would mean that gun owners who desire to follow the law would have to continually research every state law, PLUS 39 county codes, PLUS 207 municipal codes. Given the severity of sentences for any and all "gun crimes," regardless of nonviolence or accident, breaking preemption is a dangerous prospect.

Of course, the counterargument is: "Then don't buy a gun." That's the real purpose of breaking preemption -- banning guns by instilling uncertainty and doubt in the minds of perfectly peaceful people who desire to obey the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Fuck that stupid shit.

State Pre-emption is the only thing that saves people who carry lawfully from ending up breaking a law by stepping over a barely-defined boundary.

My local town still has signs up banning firearms on the Snoqualmie Valley Trail. I carry anyway, because I know the local ordinance is null and void, per RCW 9.41.290.

We have bears and cougars around here. I carry. The brady campaign can kiss my ass.
If local towns and cities didn't overstep their bounds on firearms, we wouldn't have needed to pass state pre-emption.

[Hangingon]

8. The lies never stop.

[rrneck]

9. And the battle for ideological marketshare rages on. nt

[hack89]

10. Why can't cities and states also have their own abortion laws?

all civil liberties should be decided at the local level - majority rules after all.

[Starboard Tack]

16. Cities and local governments have public safety laws.

Smoking, driving, alcohol, dog leash laws etc.. Why not gun carrying laws?
They could put up detour signs for gun carriers. There are plenty of towns that welcome guns. Choose one of those to do your shopping.

[hack89]

18. Because the RKBA is an enumerated civil liberty.

it cannot be compared to "Smoking, driving, alcohol, dog leash laws..".

The day you allow states and cities to unduly restrict the 2A you have handed the repukes the key to undo Roe v Wade, marriage equality and any other civil right you would care to name.

[SGMRTDARMY]

24. So we would be treated differently

because we choose to exercise right? Somehow this sounds like segregation because some people get into a twist because of CC.

[ileus]

17. There's only one right you can destroy progressively...

or is that Progressively?

LOL

[DonP]

11. 45 shot and 8 more dead this weekend - thank heavens for preemption in Chicago

Come to Chicago, it has exactly the gun laws you seem to crave. No overriding state laws to get in the way of gun ownership, voting rights or anything else.

The city has all the ability it needs to pass and enforce about any restrictions it wants regarding firearms, both outside and inside the home. No concealed carry, except for the crooked alderman and friends of Rahm that are made "Special Deputies".

Why compared to Washington, it must be a paradise here!

That's why I'm a little confused over how this past weekend totalled up another 8 dead and 45 shot and injured for a record 60% increase over last years totals for the same period.

It must be the guns, since it couldn't be Daley and Rahm's fault for pulling over 1000 street cops from the roster of the CPD and dumping all the gang crime units.

Let's just blame those evil bastards in Indiana or those target shooters downstate.

Please tell us what we should do next here, as far as laws go oh all knowing one?

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Washington Ceasefire apparently doesn't give a shit about truth- see paragraph 7:

The state law of preemption also prevents municipalities from banning semi-automatic assault weapons or reducing the number of bullets in a magazine clip from the 30-bullet capacity used by the killer at Virginia Tech.

It's rather well known that Seng-Hui Cho used 'normal' capacity magazines to go about his demonic business. Which raises a question:

Can we assume that the other things they say are of similar accuracy?

[AtheistCrusader]

58. They got him confused with Loughner.

Which of course, calls into question their intelligence.

[sarisataka]

13. I find this to be, perhaps the most ridiculous of the pro-control arguments

It is saying that a guaranteed right has limits depending on where a person lives.

Is the 1A limited only to city dwellers? If you claim 5A protection you are denied because you live in a suburb...

Much like zero tolerance policies, it is something for the lazy to fall back on. 'Because Chicago is not Cheyenne we have to ban guns'. No you have to face to social and economic difficulties posed by a larger population and address those to remove the driving factors of violence.

If a person does not want to deal with that, don't run for office in Chicago or Seattle. I hear El Paso is pretty quiet.



For the record I believe that while the NYC stop and frisk policies may be able to do some good, they are a straight up violation of the Constitution and should be immediately stopped. Those affected should be able to sue for civil rights violation.

[PavePusher]

60. Minor correction....

They are not "lazy", they have a flat history of outright lying.

Fuck them.

[Tejas]

44. They tried preemption in my city.

Mayor tried to temporarily ban sales of booze and ammunition for a few days, county judge spanked her.