Preemption laws are a rather basic legal concept that states enact to ensure local governments do not impose restrictions stronger than those enacted by legislatures.
In the case of gun control, most states have these laws in place. They effectively handcuff local jurisdictions from enacting harsh measures and creating a confusing patchwork quilt of constitutional rights.
Missouri is a state solidly on the side of the Second Amendment. It respects its long tradition of hunting and sportsman activities that go together with personal liberties. And in the process, it has had to fend off several attempts by municipalities to restrict these rights.
Part of that effort has been to enact preemption, essentially blocking these attempts by city and county entities to curtail freedoms.
State law currently allows for local governments to regulate open carry of weapons. Some lawmakers, however, express concern that they could face legal action if these laws were enforced.
A new nonprofit, Sensible Missouri, aims to rein in these rights and permit local governments the chance to enact restrictive gun control measures.
Richard Rosenfeld, an organizer with the group, reasoned that “when one goes from county to county, encounters different traffic laws, different regulations of all kinds, we see no reason why that same logic shouldn’t apply to firearm regulations.”
Of course, equating traffic laws with constitutional rights is hardly a just comparison.
He claimed that the situations in rural areas are starkly different from those in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri’s two largest urban areas. This, he asserted, is reason enough for constitutional rights to differ from county to county.
The amendment Sensible Missouri is proposing would not mandate what those differing statutes would be, only that local rules could be enacted that counter state law. Anything from concealed carry permits and waiting periods to background checks and age requirements would be fair game.
Interestingly, the retired criminologist with the University of Missouri St. Louis believes the group’s proposal crosses the political divide.
“I don’t view this as a partisan issue by any means,” Rosenfeld said. “I think it combines concern with firearm violence, which we all share, with proposals for regulations that could help diminish firearm violence with the conservative principle that the government is closer to the people [and] is more responsible to people’s needs.”
There is an interesting question for Rosenfeld, since he apparently supports local jurisdictions having the ability to ignore state laws. In a state such as Illinois that carries draconian gun control regulations on its books, would the reverse be true?
Could cities and counties opt out of its ban on so-called “assault weapons?”
That is highly unlikely.
Or, closer to home, if the Missouri legislature fell into the hands of the gun control crowd, would the reverse apply? Would local governments be free to erase waiting periods and enact constitutional carry?
State Rep. Jim Murphy (R) of St. Louis County called the proposal “problematic.” He declared that “a patchwork of gun laws could be at best confusing and lead to liberties being infringed upon.”
Murphy instead called for enforcing laws already on the books.
In the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause established that the Constitution and federal law generally supersedes state laws and constitutions. This is necessary, as the Founding Fathers realized, to avoid a mess of entanglements that would legally cripple the nation.
Similarly, Missouri’s preemption statute means that local governments are not able to overrule state lawmakers. In the case of gun control, it is simple enough to see the myriad of issues that would result from cities and towns having the power to overrule state law.
Not to mention the Constitution.
