Firearms Preemption Conflicts Between State And Local Governments
From Ballotpedia 
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
Ballotpedia's coverage of state and local preemption conflicts  |
Coronavirus • Energy infrastructure Firearms • GMO Labor • LGBT • Marijuana Plastic bags Police department budgets Ridesharing Sanctuary jurisdictions • Soda taxes |
| Other storylines: Sharing economy Municipal partisanship |
Last updated: September 2, 2021
Ballotpedia covers preemption conflicts between state and local governments in several policy areas.[1] Preemption occurs when law at a higher level of government is used to overrule authority at a lower level.[2] This page summarizes state and local preemption conflicts over firearms policy. To learn more about other preemption conflicts, click here.
Firearms regulations are a common source of preemption conflicts. State governments have overruled firearms regulations enacted by local governments and preemptively barred localities from enacting their own firearms regulations. Local firearms ordinances have also been challenged under state law in the courts. These conflicts have sometimes attracted the attention of national groups that are engaged in the firearms regulation debate, such as the Second Amendment Foundation and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
| Firearms preemption conflicts overview | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | State | Summary |
| 2021 | Minnesota | The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and two individuals filed a complaint challenging the Minnesota State Fair's ban on weapons. |
| 2021 | Missouri | Cole County judge rejected St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Jackson County's request that House Bill 85 be ruled unconstitutional. |
| 2021 | Florida | A Florida appeals court upheld a 2011 law imposing penalties on local government officials who enact or enforce firearms ordinances. |
| 2021 | Colorado | A Colorado district court affirmed the preemption of a Boulder ordinance that would have banned the possession, sale, and transfer of certain types of automatic firearms and magazines. Gov. Polis (D) later signed Senate Bill 256 permitting local governments to enact ordinances or regulations on firearms that are not less restrictive than state laws. |
| 2021 | Washington | A Washington appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling affirming the preemption of a local firearms storage regulation. |
| 2020 | Pennsylvania | Philadelphia, joined by city residents impacted by violence related to firearms and Ceasefire Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit challenging the state's firearms preemption laws. |
| 2020 | Virginia | After the Virginia legislature passed a package of seven gun laws, local jurisdictions passed resolutions refusing to enforce state gun laws. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring responded by saying these local resolutions had no legal force. |
| 2019 | Montana | A legislatively referred state statute was placed on the November 3, 2020, ballot that, if passed, would remove local governments' authority to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons. |
| 2017 | Florida | An appeals court rejected a lawsuit claiming local firearm ordinances passed in 1957 and 1984 were in violation of a 1987 state law preempting local regulation of firearms because the ordinances were not being enforced. |
| 2017 | Iowa | The governor signed a firearms bill into law that would prohibit cities, counties, and townships from passing firearm regulations. |
| 2017 | Michigan | A majority in the Michigan House of Representatives voted to pass legislation prohibiting local firearms regulation. |
| 2017 | Montana | The Montana Attorney General struck down a Missoula background check ordinance citing a Montana State Legislature ordinance prohibiting local government from enacting firearm regulations. |
| 2017 | Pennsylvania | A Pennsylvania appellate court struck down a Lower Merion township prohibition on carrying or discharging firearms in a public park for its potential to violate a state-level firearms law. |
| 2017 | Washington | The Washington Supreme Court upheld a Seattle tax on firearms and ammunition, finding it not in violation of a state law prohibiting local regulation of guns. |
| 2016 | Arizona | The Arizona Supreme Court struck down a Tucson law requiring confiscated or surrendered firearms to be destroyed because it contradicted a state law requiring law enforcement agencies sell such firearms. |
| 2016 | Pennsylvania | Allentown Council indefinitely tabled an ordinance requiring gun owners report lost or stolen firearms after a previous iteration of the ordinance had been repealed to avoid a lawsuit enabled by a 2015 state law, which was later repealed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. |
| 2010 | Ohio | The Ohio Supreme Court upheld a 2006 state law that invalidated stricter local firearms ordinances, like those passed in the city of Cleveland. |
2021[edit]
New Hampshire: Bill to block local firearms restrictions[edit]
On January 9, 2021, New Hampshire Reps. Norman Silber (R), Michael Yakubovich (R), Barbara Comtois (R), and Linda Gould (R) introduced HB307. The bill would prohibit a county, city, town, or other local government entity in the state from enacting or enforcing any regulations on firearms and other weapons that conflict with state law. It would also require local governments to rescind conflicting regulations within 90 days of receiving written notice from a public and private entity. If they do not, the bill would grant the aggrieved entity ability to bring the issue before the superior court with jurisdiction over the location of the conflicting regulation.
The bill passed the state House on April 7, but did not pass the state Senate during the 2021 legislative session. As of January 5, 2022, the bill had been referred to the Senate Calendar Committee.[3][4]
Colorado: District court affirms preemption of Boulder firearm regulation[edit]
On March 12, 2021, the 20th District Court in Boulder, Colorado, held that a Boulder ordinance regulating firearm ownership was preempted by state law.[5] The ordinance would have prohibited the sale, possession, and transfer of "all semi-automatic center-fire rifles that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" and certain types of magazines.[6]
Judge Andrew Hartman wrote in the court's opinion:[5]
| “ | These provisions are invalid, and enforcement of them is enjoined. The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale and transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.[7] | ” |
On June 19, 2021, Governor Polis (D) signed Senate Bill 256 permitting local governments to enact ordinances or regulations on sales, purchases, and transfers or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm components and accessories, that are not less restrictive than state laws.[8] The bill also permitted local authorities to enact ordinances and regulations prohibiting carrying a concealed handgun within the governing authority's jurisdiction.[9]
Florida: Appeals court upholds state firearms preemption penalty law[edit]
On April 9, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal upheld a 2011 law that imposed penalties on local government officials who enacted or enforced local firearms laws, reversing an earlier court's ruling
In 2018, a group of Florida city and county governments filed a lawsuit challenging the 2011 state law that imposed penalties on local government officials who enacted or enforced local firearms laws. Under the provisions of the law, local officials who enact firearms ordinances could face up to a $5,000 fine and removal from office. The law also prohibited those officials from using their city or county attorney's offices to fight lawsuits challenging local ordinances. A separate 1987 law pre-empted local firearms regulations.[10][11] Leon County Judge Charles W. Dodson heard arguments in the case on June 7, 2019.[12]
On July 26, 2019, Dodson ruled that the law was unconstitutional.[13] The state filed an appeal on July 30, 2019.[14] The state filed a brief outlining its case in the appeal on November 22, 2019.[15] On December 29, 2019, attorneys representing the Florida localities filed a brief summarizing their case.[16]
In 2021, Judge Susan Kelsey wrote for the First District Court of Appeal:[17][18]
| “ | Appellees argue that entities adopting firearm or ammunition regulations stricter than the Legislature’s are properly exercising their rights to discretion in governance and that immunity derived from the separation of powers doctrine shields the exercise of that discretion. The trial court accepted this reasoning, but we reject it.[7] | ” |
| “ | The Florida Legislature has the authority to abrogate legislative immunity. It has done so here, because state preemption in this field necessarily and directly deprives local governments and agencies, and their officials, of any authority or discretion to contravene, exceed, or evade the Florida Legislature’s regulation of the entire field of firearms and ammunition. In this field, the Legislature has withdrawn all legislative authority from local governments and agencies to make policy decisions. No immunity can exist for local or agency enactment of provisions in violation of state preemption and thus beyond the scope of state-delegated authority.[7] | ” |
The attorneys for the local governments filed a motion for certification of questions of great public importance on April 26, requesting the court send the issue to the United States Supreme Court.[19]
Minnesota: Lawsuit filed challenging State Fair's weapons ban[edit]
On August 10, 2021, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and two individuals (Tim Christopher and Sarah Cade Hauptman) filed a complaint in the Minnesota Second Judicial District alleging that the Minnesota State Fair's ban on weapons within the fair's grounds violated state and federal firearms laws.[20][21] The complaint said that the plaintiffs were constitutionally and statutorily permitted to carry loaded and operable handguns at the Minnesota State Fair. It further said that "Minnesota law supersedes and preempts any inconsistent local regulation regarding the carrying or possession of pistols."[20] The plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing the State Fair from excluding or ejecting "any person who has a permit to carry a pistol on the basis that such a person possesses a firearm."[20] On August 25, 2021, Judge Laura Nelson of the Minnesota District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction.[22] As of September 2, 2021, litigation was ongoing.
Bryan Strawser, chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said that "There is simply no legal or constitutional justification for the prohibition on lawful, permitted carry of firearms at the Minnesota State Fair."[23]
The Minnesota State Fair and Ramsey County (where the fair takes place) said in a statement that they did not comment on pending litigation. The fair said, “We will maintain our time-honored Minnesota tradition of peaceful, family-friendly fairs by protecting the safety and security of our guests.”[21] The Ramsey County Sheriff's Office said, "The Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office has law enforcement responsibility inside the State Fairgrounds once attendees have entered one of the public gates. Any questions regarding gate admission policies should be directed to Minnesota State Agricultural Society."[24]
To read the full complaint, click here.
To read the full order denying the plaintiffs' motions for temporary injunction click here.
Missouri: Cole County judge denies St. Louis city and county leaders request for declaratory relief in lawsuit challenging House Bill 85[edit]
On August 27, 2021, Cole County Judge Daniel Green rejected St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Jackson County's request that House Bill 85 be ruled unconstitutional.[25] The ruling stated, "The constitutional issues raised in this matter should be litigated (if at all) by each plaintiff in each separate case."[26] House Bill 85, which was signed into law on June 12, 2021, by Governor Mike Parson (R), declared that certain actions regulating firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition exclusively within Missouri "exceed the powers granted to the federal government."[27] Those actions included "actions that collect data, restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within this state," and "any registration or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition or any registration or tracking of the ownership of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition."[27] It also declared invalid all past, present, or future federal actions which would "impose a tax, levy, fee, or stamp on these items as specified in the bill; require the registration or tracking of these items or their owners; prohibit the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm; or order the confiscation of these items," and made any entity or person who would enforce laws requiring the specified actions liable for up to $50,000 in monetary damages.[27]
The city of St. Louis and St. Louis County filed a lawsuit in Missouri's 19th Circuit Court on June 21, 2021, challenging House Bill 85.[28] The complaint alleged that House Bill 85 violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, and the Missouri Constitution because it preempted the powers and authorities of city and county charters, and said the bill "does not contain a single subject; as enacted, it does not have clear title; it violates the original purpose; it exceeds the limitation on introduction of bills; it creates special laws; and it impose an emergency clause not supported by facts stating an actual emergency." The plaintiffs also alleged that the bill infringed upon the separation of the powers of the branches of the state government.[29] The complaint stated, "The consequences of HB 85 are tangible and real: they will make it easier for criminals to use guns in committing violent acts, they will give gun violence a safe haven in Missouri, and local governments like the plaintiffs may be disqualified from receiving federal grants and technical assistance through the United States Department of Justice."[29] In response to the lawsuit the office of the attorney general stated, “At the same time they’re attempting to defund the police, progressive politicians have filed this partisan lawsuit in an attempt to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Missourians,” saying, "We will continue our efforts to prosecute violent crime, and we will not shy away from defending the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”[28]
Pennsylvania: Supreme Court upholds the right to sue municipalities that enact their own firearms regulations[edit]
On October 20, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that individuals and organizations can pursue legal action against municipalities that enact firearms regulations for violating the state's preemption law if they have not first committed a crime in violation of those regulations. In the 4-3 decision, the court found that Kim Stolfer, president of Firearm Owners Against Crime, had the standing to challenge the city of Harrisburg, which "requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms, prohibits firearms in parks, bans the discharge of firearms in the city, and prohibits minors from possessing a firearm."
“It’s a century-old concept that says you can challenge a law prior to any enforcement action, and the city and the anti-gun groups in Pennsylvania were trying to say that didn’t apply to citizens. We reject that premise, and so did the Supreme Court,” says Stolfer. Josh Fleitman, a regional manager for CeaseFirePA, said, “This Supreme Court decision is going to have a chilling effect on the local democratic process by striking fear into local lawmakers about lawsuits from people who don’t live in the state even.”[30]
Washington: Appeals court upholds state firearms preemption law[edit]
On February 22, 2021, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling, upholding the preemption of an ordinance passed in the city of Edmonds that required residents to lock firearms away when not in use and established penalties for firearms owners should an unauthorized person gain access to their firearms.[31]
The court wrote:[32]
| “ | Three individual gun owners (Gun Owners) challenge an Edmonds ordinance making it a civil infraction to store unlocked any firearm and to allow access to such a firearm by children or others not permitted by law to possess it. They contend the ordinance is a firearm regulation preempted by state law. We conclude the Gun Owners have standing to raise their preenforcement challenge and hold that the ordinance is, regardless of its arguable benefits to public safety, preempted by RCW 9.41.290.[7] | ” |
On April 12, 2021, the city of Edmonds filed a petition with the Washington Supreme Court requesting review of the case.[33]
In August 2018, three residents of Edmonds, Washington, alongside the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, filed a lawsuit challenging the city's firearms storage law. The law required that residents lock firearms away when not in use and established penalties for firearms owners should an unauthorized person gain access to their firearms. The lawsuit contended that the ordinance was in violation of a state law prohibiting local firearms regulations.[34]
On October 18, 2019, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Anita L. Farris ruled that Edmond's firearms storage requirement was unlawful and ordered an immediate halt to its enforcement. Her ruling found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the fees for an unauthorized person gaining access to firearms and left that provision of the ordinance in place.[35] The city council voted to appeal the decision on November 12, 2019.[36]
2020[edit]
Virginia: Local government responses to state-level firearm legislation[edit]
On November 6, 2019, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) said he would introduce gun legislation when the newly-elected General Assembly took office in January 2020 under majority Democratic control. On what the legislation might include, he said, "Things like universal background checks. Getting rid of bump stocks, high volume magazines, red flag laws. These are commonsense pieces of legislation."[37][38] On March 7, 2020, the Virginia legislature finalized a package of seven firearm measures that included bills expanding background checks, allowing authorities to temporarily take guns from individuals that a judge deems dangerous to themselves or others, a one-per-month limit on handgun purchases, reporting requirements for individuals to report lost or stolen firearms, and increased penalties for adults who leave loaded firearms where a minor can access them.[39][40] On April 10, 2020, Northam signed five of the seven bills and proposed technical amendments to two.[41] At a veto session on April 22, the technical amendments were approved by the General Assembly.[42]
In response, county, town, and city governments in Virginia passed resolutions designed to prevent law enforcement agencies within their jurisdictions from enforcing state gun laws the localities considered unconstitutional. As of May 2020, 91 counties (over 90% of counties in the state) and 56 cities and towns in Virginia had passed resolutions refusing to enforce state gun laws, according to the Virginia Citizens Defense League.[43] The Virginia Citizens Defense League's website says it is an organization "dedicated to advancing the fundamental human right of all Virginians to keep and bear arms."
On December 20, 2019, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) responded to the resolutions by stating they had no legal force. He said, "When the General Assembly passes new gun safety laws they will be enforced, and they will be followed." The Virginia Citizens Defense League and the Gun Owners of America Inc. issued a statement arguing that the resolutions were lawful. The memo stated, "Should the government in Richmond act lawlessly, then local officials and the people they represent will not cooperate and may take steps to actively resist."[44]
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia city leaders file lawsuit challenging state's preemption law[edit]
On October 7, 2020, city leaders in Philadelphia, residents who have been affected by violence related to firearms, and an organization called Ceasefire Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania and the state Legislature challenging 18 Pa.C.S. §6120 and 53 Pa.C.S. §2962(g), which read:[45][46]
| “ | Section 6120: No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.[7] | ” |
| “ | Section 2962(g): A municipality shall not enact any ordinance or take any other action dealing with the regulation of the transfer, ownership, transportation or possession of firearms.[7] | ” |
The lawsuit says that "by enacting and continuing to ratify the Firearm Preemption Laws, the General Assembly has increased gun violence in these municipalities, and they have affirmatively endangered the lives, health and safety of the Individual Petitioners." It went on to say: "In creating and perpetuating this danger of their own making, Respondents have violated the inherent and indefeasible right to enjoy and defend life and liberty under Article 1, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution."[46]
Jason Gottesman, the spokesman for the state House Republican caucus, said in a statement that "Preemption is a necessary component of municipalities being creatures of the state, who retain ultimate oversight of them and their actions. Ultimately, this is another example of Democrat leaders making an end-run around the legislature by seeking action in the courts rather than the constitutionally-provided legislative process in changing our state’s laws."[47]
2019[edit]
Montana: Measure to remove local government authority to regulate carrying of concealed weapons approved[edit]
Montana LR-130, the Limit Local Government Authority to Regulate Firearms Measure, was on the ballot in Montana as a legislatively referred state statute on November 3, 2020.[48][49] It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported this measure to remove local governments' authority to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons. |
A "no" vote opposed this measure to remove local governments' authority to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons, thus allowing local governments to continue to regulate permitted concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. |
How did LR-130 change local government's authority to regulate permitted concealed weapons?[edit]
- See also: Text of measure
The Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Section 7-1-111 provides that local governments have the power to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons. LR-130 removed local governments’ power to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons. The ballot measure continued to allow local governments to regulate unpermitted concealed weapons and unconcealed weapons in public occupied buildings. LR-130 also removed local governments’ power to regulate the possession of firearms by “convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, illegal aliens, and minors.” As of 2020, state law provides that local governments can regulate concealed or unconcealed weapons in public buildings, parks, and schools. The amendment took effect January 1, 2021.
How did LR-130 get on the ballot?[edit]
- See also: Path to the ballot
This measure was introduced as House Bill 357 on January 25, 2019, by Representatives Matt Regier (R-4) and Derek Skees (R-11). It was designed to be sent to voters if an identical bill, House Bill 325, was vetoed by Democratic Governor Steve Bullock. The governor vetoed the bill on May 3, 2019. To override the governor's veto in Montana, a two-thirds vote in each chamber (67 votes in the House and 34 votes in the Senate) is required. Since proposed changes to statutes referred to voters by the legislature do not require the governor's signature, LR-130 (HB 357) could not be vetoed. LR-130 passed with 56 percent of the vote in both chambers.[50]
Click here for more information.
2017[edit]
Florida: Appeals court rejects lawsuit by Florida Carry, Second Amendment Foundation[edit]
An appeals court rejected a firearms regulation lawsuit against Tallahassee on February 3, 2017. The suit, which Florida Carry Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation filed, called for the repeal of local ordinances enacted in 1957 and 1984 that prohibited the discharge of firearms in city parks and other public spaces. It cited a 1987 state law that preempted local regulations on firearms.
The court found that the 1987 state law voided the ordinances, that Tallahassee had not subsequently attempted to enforce them, and that the city was not obligated to remove the void ordinances from its code. It also found that city police had been explicitly instructed to disregard the ordinances in 2011, following passage of a state law allowing public officials to be penalized for enacting or enforcing local firearms regulations.[51] Click here to read the ruling.
Iowa: Governor signs bill preempting local firearm ordinances[edit]
Gov. Terry Branstad (R) signed legislation on April 13, 2017, prohibiting Iowa cities, counties, and townships from enacting their own firearms regulations. The legislation, House File 517, also included other changes to firearms law, such as making firearms permits confidential and allowing children to handle firearms with adult supervision.[52]
State Rep. Matt Windschitl (R), who sponsored the bill, said it "expands their [Iowans] freedoms and affords them more individual responsibility to make decisions for themselves."[53] State Rep. David Heaton (R) voted against the measure due to its preemption provision while state Rep. Wesley Breckenridge (D) found the training requirements for obtaining a gun permit insufficient.[53]
Michigan: State legislators pursue preemption of local firearm ordinances[edit]
On September 27, 2017, the Michigan House of Representatives voted 69-39 for a bill prohibiting localities from enacting their own firearms regulations. The bill did not advance beyond the state Senate's Committee on Government Operations.[54]
The bill's lead sponsor, Gary Howell (R), said it would bring in line "municipalities that have not repealed ordinances that are contrary to state law."[55] The Michigan chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America said, "Our lawmakers should focus on fixing actual problems, not on passing a bill that could force Michigan cities and towns to fight lawsuits backed by special interest groups."[55]
Montana: Attorney general strikes down Missoula background check ordinance[edit]
On January 26, 2017, Montana Attorney General Tim Fox struck down a Missoula ordinance mandating background checks for gun purchases in the city. "Plainly interpreted," he said in his opinion, "the Montana Legislature has prohibited all forms of local government from exercising any regulatory power over the purchase, sale or transfer of firearms."[56]
The ordinance was passed by the Missoula City Council 8-4 on September 26, 2016. Councilwoman Marilyn Marler, who voted for the ordinance, said, "I hope that by passing this, we raise awareness of what it means to be a responsible gun owner. I wish this would come down from the state level. But sometimes we have to stick our neck out, and it's uncomfortable."[57]
Fox indicated prior to the ordinance's passage that he thought it was prohibited by state law, but the ordinance's lead sponsor, Councilman Bryan Von Lossberg, believed it was covered by a provision of state law that permitted localities to limit access to firearms by certain groups.[57][58]
Pennsylvania: State supreme court refuses to hear appeal on Lower Merion Township firearms ordinance[edit]
On July 11, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a December 2016 appellate court ruling striking down the town's prohibition on carrying or discharging firearms in public parks. Officials in Lower Merion Township appealed the appellate court's ruling January 13, 2017.[59][59]
Township resident Joseph Abramson filed the lawsuit in 2015 against a 2011 township ordinance that said:
| “ |
No person except authorized members of the Police Department shall carry or discharge firearms of any kind in a park without a special permit, unless exempted. The promiscuous use of javelins, arrows, discuses or similar athletic equipment dangerous in character is prohibited unless used under the direct supervision of an authorized playground supervisor. The use of firecrackers, fireworks or rockets is prohibited.[60][7] |
” |
| —Lower Merion Township (2011) | ||
Abramson's suit claimed that although the ordinance was not actively enforced it had the potential to violate residents' rights under state firearms law. Town attorney Richard Sokorai countered that Lower Merion was exercising its right as a property owner to restrict firearms use within township limits.[61]
In December 2016, an appellate court voted 2-1 to overturn an August 2015 county court ruling upholding the ordinance. The appellate court's majority found Lower Merion was using its powers as a government in imposing the firearms restrictions rather than the property ownership rights Sokorai invoked. The minority argued in its dissent that the town had the right to control what happened on public property.[61]
Washington: State supreme court upholds Seattle tax on firearm shops[edit]
On August 10, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court voted 8-1 to uphold taxes on firearms and ammunition sold in Seattle. The Seattle City Council had approved sales taxes of $25 per gun and five cents per round of ammunition in August 2015. Precise Shooter LLC, The Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation filed suit against the city, claiming the taxes violated a state law prohibiting local regulation of guns.[62][63]
The court's majority found the tax did not count as a regulation on firearms, so it did not fall under the state's prohibition on local firearms regulations. Justice Sheryl McCloud, who dissented from the majority opinion, argued the state's firearms preemption law was sufficiently broad to cover the Seattle tax.[63][64] The text of the preemption law, RCW 9.41.290, is included below:
| “ |
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.[62][7] |
” |
| —Washington State Legislature (1994) | ||
2016[edit]
Arizona: State supreme court strikes down Tucson firearms ordinance[edit]
On August 17, 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a 2005 Tucson ordinance requiring firearms confiscated by city police or voluntarily surrendered to the police department to be destroyed.[65]
Arizona passed a law in 2013 requiring law enforcement agencies to sell confiscated or surrendered firearms. Following the passage of a 2016 law requiring the state attorney general to investigate allegations by state legislators of violations of state law by localities, state Rep. Mark Finchem (R) asked the state attorney general's office to investigate the Tucson ordinance.[66][67][68]
In November 2016, state Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) issued an opinion concluding the Tucson ordinance likely violated state law.[69] He asked the city council to repeal the ordinance, but it declined to do so. City Councilman Steve Kozachik (D) summarized the city's position in a motion to seek legal action:
| “ |
The Mayor and Council hereby reaffirm that the destruction of firearms acquired by TPD [the Tucson Police Department] through its law enforcement activities serves important and compelling local interests, including the protection of public safety and the safety of Tucson's police officers, and that the City is exercising its constitutional authority under its Charter through TC 2-142, which was adopted in 2005.[70][7] |
” |
| —Steve Kozachik (2016) | ||
Brnovich responded by asking the state supreme court to determine whether the ordinance violated state law.[71] The court's majority found that, although charter cities like Tucson have the constitutional right to take municipal actions that conflict with state law, that right extends only to purely local issues and firearms regulation is a statewide issue. Writing for the majority, Vice Chief Justice John Pelander said,
| “ |
Matters involving the police power generally are of statewide concern. The laws at issue here implicate the state's police power in several respects, the disposition of forfeited or unclaimed property, the conduct of law enforcement officers, including their handling of unclaimed property, and the regulation of firearms.[65][7] |
” |
| —Arizona Supreme Court (2017) | ||
Pennsylvania: Allentown tables requirement to report lost or stolen firearms[edit]
On August 17, 2016, the Allentown Council tabled indefinitely an ordinance requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms.[72][73] That ordinance and ordinances prohibiting possession of firearms in city parks and on city property had previously been in effect in the city. They were repealed on February 4, 2015, following the passage of a state law that gave groups like the National Rifle Association standing to sue over local gun laws even if they were not directly harmed by them. "We really do not have a choice [about repealing the ordinances]," Councilwoman Jeanette Eichenwald said. "We need to repeal this. If not, we open ourselves for a lawsuit that will cause us financial harm."[74]
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the state law that prompted the repeals on June 20, 2016, and Allentown officials initially indicated they would reinstate the repealed ordinances.[75][76] Mayor Ed Pawlowski said on June 23, 2016, that he would reintroduce the lost and stolen firearms ordinance and research the prohibition of possession of firearms on city property for compliance with state law.[76]
As of March 2018, however, the ordinances had not been reinstated. The lost and stolen firearms ordinance was tabled following its introduction.[72] The city's parks regulations were updated on July 20, 2016, to reflect the repeal of the prohibition on firearms in city parks, and the version of the code available in March 2018 reflected that update.[77][78]
2010[edit]
Ohio: Supreme court rules in favor of state preemption law on guns[edit]
In December 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a 2006 state law that invalidated stricter local firearms ordinances. The 5-2 decision upheld the law on the grounds that the state was empowered to pass general laws to address what the court described as "a confusing patchwork" of local regulations.[79]
Lawyers for the city of Cleveland, which had passed ordinances the law invalidated, had argued its ordinances were necessary to address rising violent crime rates. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson said in response to the court's ruling, "Even though we've made progress in Cleveland, gun violence is a very real threat that we face, particularly our young people. Our inability to enforce laws that are right for our city flies in the face of home rule and takes power away [from] the people at the local level."[79]
See also[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ Ballotpedia selects preemption conflict coverage areas based on the prevalence of conflicts within a policy area and the relevance of the conflicts to national political discussions. To recommend a new preemption conflict coverage area, email editor@ballotpedia.org.
- ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Preemption," accessed June 8, 2021
- ↑ Legiscan, "NH HB307," accessed March 10, 2022
- ↑ 14-10 Legiscan, "NH HB307," accessed March 10, 2022
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 The Denver Post, "Can Colorado cities enact their own gun restrictions? A Boulder judge says no.," March 18, 2021
- ↑ City of Boulder, Colorado, "Ordinance No. 8245," accessed May 3, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Colorado Politics, "Senate Democrats pass preemption bill that allows local governments to pass stricter gun laws," accessed July 2, 2021
- ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms," accessed July 2, 2021
- ↑ Associated Press, "Florida cities sue governor over gun regulations law," April 3, 2018
- ↑ Miami Herald, "Local officials take gun-control fight to court. They’re challenging Florida law." June 7, 2019
- ↑ Fox 35, "Local governments, state square off on gun law," June 7, 2019
- ↑ South Florida Sun Sentinel, "Judge tosses law that punishes city officials who try to regulate guns," July 26, 2019
- ↑ CBS Miami, "Florida Appeals Judge’s Ruling On Law Penalizing Officials For Approving Gun Regulations," July 31, 2019
- ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Florida gun control lawsuit pitting state against local governments moves to appeals court," November 25, 2019
- ↑ The Center Square, "Florida firearms preemption battle gears up for 2020 court showdown," accessed February 7, 2020
- ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "NRA, GOP win as court upholds law preventing local gun control," April 9, 2021
- ↑ CBS Miami, "Florida Appeals Court Upholds Law On Local Gun Regulations," April 10, 2021
- ↑ South Florida Sun-Sentinel, "Cities and counties want Florida Supreme Court to rule on 2011 gun law that was challenged after Parkland shooting," April 26, 2021
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Second Judicial District Court, "Court File No. 62-cv-21-4223: Minnesota Gun Owners et. al. v. Ramsey County et al.," accessed August 16, 2021
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Associated Press, "Group sues for right to carry guns at Minnesota State Fair," accessed August 16, 2021
- ↑ Minnesota Reformer, "Judge won’t force Minnesota State Fair to let visitors bring guns as lawsuit proceeds," accessed September 2, 2021
- ↑ Gun Owners Caucus, "Press Release: MN Gun Owners Caucus files suit seeking an injunction against State Agricultural Society, Ramsey County, and Sheriff Bob Fletcher over violations of the Second Amendment & Minnesota Statutes," accessed August 16, 2021
- ↑ KSTP, "Group sues for right to carry guns at Minnesota State Fair," accessed August 16, 2021
- ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Cole County judge sinks lawsuit by St. Louis, St. Louis County over new gun law," accessed September 2, 2021
- ↑ Circuit Court of Cole County, "Case No. 21AC-CC00237," accessed September 2, 2021
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Missouri House of Representatives, "House Bill 85," accessed July 12, 2021
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Kansas City Star, "St. Louis sues Missouri over new law declaring federal gun statutes ‘invalid’," accessed July 12, 2021
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 Missouri Circuit Court Nineteenth Circuit (Cole County), "City of St. Louis and St. Louis County v. State of Missouri," accessed July 12, 2021
- ↑ CBS Pittsburgh, "Pa. Supreme Court Says Gun Rights Groups Can Sue Municipalities That Enact Gun Safety Laws In Violation Of State’s Preemption Laws," October 21, 2021
- ↑ My Edmonds News, "Appeals court knocks down remainder of Edmonds gun storage law," February 22, 2021
- ↑ LexisNexis, "Bass v. City of Edmonds," accessed May 3, 2021
- ↑ My Edmonds News, "City of Edmonds petitions State Supreme Court to overrule decision throwing out gun storage ordinance," April 12, 2021
- ↑ HeraldNet, "Edmonds gun owners and NRA sue city over safe-storage law," August 13, 2018
- ↑ HeraldNet, "Court ruling: Edmonds can’t enforce safe gun storage," October 22, 2019
- ↑ Edmonds Beacon, "City will appeal gun-storage ruling," November 14, 2019
- ↑ ABC News 13, "Gov. Northam plans to reintroduce gun control measures after election night," accessed December 30, 2019
- ↑ The Hill, "Virginia governor vows to reintroduce gun control measures after Democrats win control of legislature," accessed December 30, 2019
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Va. General Assembly takes flurry of historic legislation down to wire," accessed April 2, 2020
- ↑ The Epoch Times, "Virginia Gun Control Measures Head to Governor’s Desk, After Passing Assembly," accessed April 2, 2020
- ↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Northam signs five gun control measures, seeks to amend two others," accessed April 15, 2020
- ↑ Washington Examiner, "Virginia Democrats tack on two more 'common sense' gun control bills during reconvened session," accessed April 24, 2020
- ↑ Virginia Citizens Defense League, "Home," accessed April 2, 2020
- ↑ The Washington Examiner, "Virginia gun ‘sanctuary' leaders urge resistance to gun laws, compare to American Revolution," accessed December 30, 2019
- ↑ Philadelphia Inquirer, "Philadelphia sues Pennsylvania over inability to enact city-specific gun laws," accessed May 3, 2021
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 City of Philadelphia, "Crawford v. Commonwealth," accessed May 3, 2021
- ↑ CBS Philly, "Philadelphia Files Court Challenge On Pennsylvania’s Firearms Preemption Laws," October 7, 2020
- ↑ Montana State Legislature, "House Bill 357," accessed February 25, 2019
- ↑ Montana State Legislature, "House Bill 357 Text," accessed February 25, 2019
- ↑ Montana Legislature, "House Bill 325," accessed April 5, 2019
- ↑ Orlando Weekly, "Court rejects lawsuit over Tallahassee gun ordinances," February 3, 2017
- ↑ The Iowa Legislature, "House File 517," accessed February 19, 2018
- ↑ 53.0 53.1 Iowa Public Radio, "Firearms coalition applauds passage of gun rights bill; Next stop Iowa Senate," March 7, 2017
- ↑ Michigan Legislature, "House Bill 4616 (2017)," accessed May 3, 2021
- ↑ 55.0 55.1 The Detroit News, "House OKs gun law pre-emption, fine for CPL violation," September 27, 2017
- ↑ Missoulian, "Attorney general overturns Missoula gun ordinance," January 26, 2017
- ↑ 57.0 57.1 Missoula Current, "Missoula adopts mandatory background checks for gun sales, transfers," September 27, 2016
- ↑ Montana Standard, "AG says proposed gun ordinance 'likely' violates state law," October 15, 2015
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "Firearms Owners Against Crime, Kim Stolfer and Joseph Abramson v. Lower Merion Township," March 1, 2018
- ↑ Township of Lower Merion, PA, "109-16 Firearms; fireworks," April 20, 2011
- ↑ 61.0 61.1 Keystone Crossroads, "Lower Merion will fight firearms ordinance ruling," January 4, 2017
- ↑ 62.0 62.1 Washington State Legislature, "RCW 9.41.290," accessed August 31, 2017
- ↑ 63.0 63.1 KING5, "Seattle's gun tax legal, says state Supreme Court," August 10, 2017
- ↑ Washington Courts, "Watson, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al.," August 10, 2017
- ↑ 65.0 65.1 The Arizona Republic, "Tucson can't destroy confiscated guns, Arizona Supreme Court rules," August 17, 2017
- ↑ Fox 10, "Arizona lawmaker wants Tucson to stop destroying guns," October 31, 2016
- ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Legislators' complaints of lawbreaking by cities on the upswing," February 9, 2018
- ↑ Tucson.com, "Lawmaker questions Tucson gun disposal program," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Tucson.com, "State attorney general: Tucson may be violating law by destroying guns," December 6, 2016
- ↑ Tucson.com, "City Council votes 7-0 to fight state over Tucson's gun-destruction policy," December 6, 2016
- ↑ Arizona Daily Sun, "Brnovich sues Tucson over firearms destruction," December 6, 2016
- ↑ 72.0 72.1 The Morning Call, "Proposed lost/stolen gun law tabled indefinitely by Allentown Council," August 17, 2016
- ↑ Allentown, Pennsylvania, "File 15-1004," accessed March 6, 2018
- ↑ The Morning Call, "Allentown repeals gun law in fear of lawsuits," February 4, 2015
- ↑ Philadelphia Magazine, "Pa. Supreme Court rules NRA-backed law unconstitutional," June 21, 2016
- ↑ 76.0 76.1 The Morning Call, "Allentown moves to reinstate gun restrictions after state Supreme Court ruling," June 23, 2016
- ↑ Allentown, Pennsylvania, "City Council - 7/20/2016," accessed March 6, 2018
- ↑ Allentown, Pennsylvania, "Title Seven - Parks and Hamilton Street Regulations," accessed March 6, 2018
- ↑ 79.0 79.1 Cleveland.com, "Ohio Supreme Court upholds state law blocking Cleveland's gun law," December 29, 2010
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Categories: [Preemption conflict storylines] [Marquee, overview page, 2020] [Marquee, overview page, 2021] [Marquee, overview page, 2022] [Marquee, overview page, 2023]
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 08/11/2025 01:30:11 | 4 views
☰ Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Firearms_preemption_conflicts_between_state_and_local_governments | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
KSF