This new law has been eerily and accurately titled: "Preemption of local firearm regulation." This unnecessary law, pushed by Republicans but endorsed by many Democrats, tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. It also tells the state's urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don't live in those cities.
The idea is not that a city like Indianapolis doesn't know what's best for itself and the state of Indiana does, it's simply a matter on not inconveniencing gun owners. Let's say there's a guy from Gary Indiana who carries a gun everywhere he goes, you know, just in case. If Indianapolis is allowed to prohibit guns in its parks, that poor guy from Gary would be faced with a terrible dilemma if he had some reason to go to the Indianapolis park. He'd either have have to decline to go, that's bad, or leave his gun in the glove compartment of the car, that's really bad, or LEAVE IT HOME IN THE GUNSAFE WHERE IT BELONGS. Naturally, we can't expect gun owners to have to face such choices so we depend on the State to govern.
Of course, the gun enthusiasts in Indiana, and everywhere else for that matter, have no proplem with Federal laws that support their cause too.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Your concept of self-defense is apparently so narrow-minded and fraught with errors in logic that it renders intelligent discourse impossible. You are one of those well intentioned, but not well educated, persons that grasps only the emotional side of gun politics. Your understanding of the purpose of state preemption laws is also lacking.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an issue of big government vs small government. This is an issue of whether a government (state, local, or federal)can deny a Constitutional right without due process. Indiana has correctly decided that local governments can't deny people's rights.
ReplyDeleteNo, if that man from Gary were to visit his state capitol and decided to eat lunch in a city park, he would not suddenly become a criminal by mistake. That is what preemption does--it makes the laws uniform throughout the state as it should be.
ReplyDeleteThe other day I was in a gun-free zone with about 15,000-20,000 people by the time I left. Man! I was shitting bricks. No one with a gun to protect me all that time. Incredibly, there were no reports of breaking into cars looking for stashed guns. I guess it was okay since nobody was murdered that day. It's a little thing we like to call the county fair and there are no weapons allowed.
ReplyDeleteUnconstitutional? Not really.
MikeB: “Big Federal Government is Bad, Big State Government is Good”
ReplyDeleteYes… so long as they are limiting Big Local Government. In the end this is about fewer laws criminalizing good people, and that is a win for freedom.
Flying Junior: “I guess it was okay since nobody was murdered that day. It's a little thing we like to call the county fair and there are no weapons allowed.”
ReplyDeleteIronically after the fair packs up, the Crossroads of the West gunshow is coming to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. I don’t expect anybody to get murdered then either.
Just read your post at DU and clearly you have no F***ing clue about state pre-emption laws, here in NV we have a pre-emption law and North Las Vegas is about to get their asses handed to them for outlawing open carry although the state law clearly states that open carry is 100% legal. Why, as a lawful gun owner who is licensed to carry concealed should I have to worry about the laws from town to town and whether I will be legal. Pre-emption makes a hell of a lot of sense and if you were'nt so anti 2nd amend. you could see theis
ReplyDeletePerhaps you'd like to invent your own personal set of laws and use them to subvert some of my constitutional rights. You're more than welcome to try. (I am a Democrat and ostensibly a Liberal but on this issue I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment defender.)
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty typical.
ReplyDeleteYou always get gunloons claiming to be Democrats and Liberals who just so happen to march in lockstep with the NRA.
Uh huh. Concern trolls.
Jade: “You always get gunloons claiming to be Democrats and Liberals who just so happen to march in lockstep with the NRA.”
ReplyDeleteSince the NRA is a single issue organization, it is extremely likely that you’ll find liberal democrats that disagree with the party and side with the NRA on second amendment issues. Hell, there are actual serving democrats that are “lockstep” with the NRA. Why can’t you ever think for yourself and break from the party on any one issue? I’d really have to question someone if they always have to consult their party handbook to see where they stand on an issue.
Damn! He's right, of course.
ReplyDeletecowman and karlschneider, I can see you don't like what I've been saying, but how about answering me this?
ReplyDeleteIf state pre-emption serves to make laws uniform throughout the state, the convenience of which I can see, what about the mish-mash of differing laws between states? Wouldn't we want uniformity there as well?
"Wouldn't we want uniformity there as well?"
ReplyDeleteWe do as protecting civil liberties IS one of the more important jobs of the judiciary and legislative bodies. It just takes years and a lot of effort to see any movement on either front.
Legislatively, there's a number of things which passed with the last administration (protections on 2A during national emergencies as example). No doubt a number of things will pass with this administration as well (CCW in national parks, National CCW reciprocity, etc). The last congress was pro-gun. Progun dems were replaced by progun Repubs.
On the legal front, the McDonald decision and 'incorporation' is the beginning of the consistency you're suggesting. There are about 10 cases working their way through the system from buying across state lines, to CCW for 18 year olds, to owning so called assault weapons, to abolishing excessive fees when obtaining a license.
Federal protection will mean restraining states in violating civil liberties. By its nature, every decision limits state and local people from gun control restrictions.
"On the legal front, the McDonald decision and 'incorporation' is the beginning of the consistency you're suggesting. There are about 10 cases working their way through the system from buying across state lines, to CCW for 18 year olds, to owning so called assault weapons, to abolishing excessive fees when obtaining a license.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm sure you boyz would all be for a federal firearms registration law?