Only those new laws are barred from taking effect.
Missouri is one of 42 states with preemption statutes on the books. These place the authority to enact laws concerning firearms and Second Amendment rights solely with the state. In doing so, preemption avoids the entanglement of having an unworkable patchwork quilt of regulations oppressing gun owners.
Imagine traveling through a state while armed as a licensed concealed carry permit holder and encountering vastly differing laws between cities and counties.
Preemption is hardly just a state-level legality. The U.S. Constitution contains the powerful Supremacy Clause that guarantees that federal law supersedes state law. There are certain responsibilities that reside only with the federal government, including conducting wars, treaties with foreign nations and immigration policy — just to name a few.
There is a push in Missouri to do away with preemption, and if successful it would have ramifications across the other 41 states that protect gun rights on the local level. A nonprofit called Sensible Missouri has sprung up with intentions to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot.
Proponents claim it simply allows local rule on issues like gun control. They compare gun rights to traffic laws, which certainly may vary between jurisdictions.
However, controlling highway traffic is not a part of the Constitution, while the right to keep and bear arms is.
Though it is unlikely, if the Missouri push to end preemption were to be successful next November, it would create a blueprint for others to follow. Cities such as St. Louis would be free to draw up egregious laws that blatantly infringe on personal liberties, even as neighboring towns and counties do the opposite.
Another example of the power of preemption comes from Ohio. Recently the Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned a ruling by a lower court that granted an injunction to the Columbus officials. That lower court ruling allowed the city to create their own gun control laws and enforce them.
However, the appeals court ruled that the lower court erred when it prohibited the state from enforcing laws to guarantee uniformity of gun rights.
Thus, Ohio’s preemption laws continue to take precedence and protect gun rights for its citizens. Attorney General Dave Yost called it a clear victory for state residents.
“The court’s ruling assures that all Ohioans must abide by the same law, state law, when it comes to firearms. Just like we argued in court, firearms owners statewide should have to follow the same rules.”
Anti-gun advocates are hardly consistent with their opposition to preemption laws. There are clear examples of glaring hypocrisy when localities want to circumvent strict state statutes governing firearms possession.
For example, Oregon’s Measure 114 bans standard capacity magazines and mandates local police to keep an electronic firearms permit database, implement firearms training and conduct fingerprinting for permit applicants.
Five county sheriffs rose in rebellion, stating they would not enforce the state laws. The officials charged that the statutes are in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Oregon officials had none of this.
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum cited the law forcing local authorities to carry out their “statutory duty to enforce state criminal laws.”
Similar scenarios are being played out in other states where local law enforcement clashes with strict state gun control measures. But when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly state leaders find preemption is a noble and worthwhile protocol.
Gun control zealots cannot have it both ways.
