These “kitchen table” dealers in recent times have come under fire, with many government entities wanting to suppress their activities. One city that outlawed people selling guns and ammunition out of their homes was Fargo, North Dakota.
That statute now faces legal turbulence, and a lawsuit is the result.
The North Dakota legislature earlier this year passed a law that took effect last week limiting the ability of cities and counties to institute their own gun control measures. No longer will these local governments be able to regulate gun and ammunition sales — this will be the responsibility of the state.
It also nullified existing laws, such as that in Fargo.
From the state’s perspective, it is a clear matter of “preemption.” This results when a higher level of government restricts or strips regulatory power from a lower level of government.
What it means is that, when such laws are enacted, cities and counties may not pass laws that supersede state statutes covering firearms and ammunition.
As gun rights advocates well know, this is a one-way street. While the anti-gun crowd rejoices when states enact restrictive gun control measures, they are outraged when state governments limit lower levels from adopting similar acts.
For the state’s largest city, the issue is “home rule.” The lawsuit questions whether North Dakota lawmakers may “strip away” home rule from the city. It was 1970 when Fargo voters gave the city home rule powers over a wide range of issues.
The lawsuit states, “As it relates to this present action, the North Dakota legislative assembly is upset that the City of Fargo has exercised its home rule powers to prohibit the residents of the City of Fargo — and no one else — from the home occupation of selling firearms and ammunition and the production of ammunition for sale.”
The suit added that city leaders do not want residents to operate “gun stores” in neighborhoods.
Despite the history of courts upholding states’ ability to preempt local gun control ordinances, Fargo successfully challenged a similar law two years ago.
North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said his office is evaluating the complaint from Fargo. Meanwhile, city spokesperson Gregg Schildberger said the City Commission will discuss the legal action against the state this week.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Ben Koppelman (R), said the issue came to the forefront in 2016. He told a state Senate panel in April that this was when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) declined to renew federal firearm licenses of Fargo gun enthusiasts who conducted transactions out of their homes.
As Koppelman explained, “What is at issue is whether we want local governments creating gun control or whether we want gun regulations to remain a state-controlled issue.” He worried that local political subdivisions could enact a patchwork quilt of regulations.
Further, given the anti-Second Amendment track record of Fargo leaders, the representative said that type of action could be expected.
What rightly should be avoided is having local government entities randomly putting up roadblocks preventing citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. There are many shining examples across the U.S. of just how far these cities and counties will go to restrict personal liberties.
Gun rights advocates should hope that North Dakota prevails in court and continues to protect its residents’ rights from local leaders who want nothing more than to strip them away.
