Can Preemption Go Both Ways?

[P5 Guy]

Senate Bill 35 will destroy Virginia’s firearm preemption laws by allowing localities to create new “gun free zones” in and around public buildings and parks. Criminals will ignore these restrictions, leaving law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Un-do preemption? Can those counties or cities then make less restrictive firearms laws?

 

[bdickens]

I doubt it. That's not the way it works.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Un-do preemption? Can those counties or cities then make less restrictive firearms laws?

Theoretically, I guess. But it wouldn't matter. The more restrictive state laws would remain in effect and would be enforceable.

 

[P5 Guy]

I doubt it. That's not the way it works.

Just the pollyanna in me, can't those counties that are declaring sanctuary for the 2nd Amendment write less restrictive regulation than the state Since there is no mandate to follow state legislation that is more restrictive than the citizens of the 'rebelling' county ...?

"Finally, SB 615, SB 450, and SB 505, all of which allow localities to pass various gun-control ordinances, were rolled into a substitute version of SB 35, making SB 35 an omnibus bill that destroys preemption by allowing Virginia localities to create a confusing set of local gun-control laws. Again, speaker after speaker spoke against SB 35, but it passed by a partisan 9 to 5 vote."

 

[AlexanderA]

Just the pollyanna in me, can't those counties that are declaring sanctuary for the 2nd Amendment write less restrictive regulation than the state Since there is no mandate to follow state legislation that is more restrictive than the citizens of the 'rebelling' county ...?

The "sanctuary," to the extent it conflicts with state law, has no legal force and effect. The more restrictive law, provided it is valid on its face, always controls. You can challenge the state law on 2nd Amendment grounds, but that has nothing to do with "rebelling" local jurisdictions.

 

[Kendahl]

The most a local community can do is tell the state, "If we have evidence of a violation, our judges won't issue arrest warrants, our police won't make arrests and our prosecutors won't prosecute. If the state tries to do these things on its own, none of our local officials will assist." That's already being done with sanctuaries whether for immigration, drugs or firearms.

 

[JTHunter]

The mayor of St. Louis, MO, is doing the same thing. Despite the state having preemption, the Board of Aldermen passed and "Loony" Lyda Krewson signed a bill into law that all city parks in St. Louis are GFZs.
It hasn't seemed to help but they are now shooting at other cars on the interstates.

 

[IJ1981]

Virginia appears to be lost to us for the present. Without state pre emption following the law becomes an impossible maze of conflicting jurisdictions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Virginia appears to be lost to us for the present. Without state pre emption following the law becomes an impossible maze of conflicting jurisdictions.

The preemption bill that passed the Senate, SB 35, is limited in scope. (It applies to local control of guns at "permitted events" such as parades and demonstrations, and I think it might have been amended to repeal preemption as regards to carrying in local government buildings and local parks.)

The ones to worry about are the bills, HB 421 and SB 506, that would repeal general state preemption. These would allow localities to enact their own AWBs. So far they haven't cleared committees.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

The mayor of St. Louis, MO, is doing the same thing. Despite the state having preemption, the Board of Aldermen passed and "Loony" Lyda Krewson signed a bill into law that all city parks in St. Louis are GFZs.
It hasn't seemed to help but they are now shooting at other cars on the interstates.

Someone I know was arrested in St Louis for that, then his lawyer contacted the state Ag and the case was dropped and weapon returned.

who knows where it’s going to go from there.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Virginia appears to be lost to us for the present. Without state pre emption following the law becomes an impossible maze of conflicting jurisdictions.

If you live in that county where the sheriff will deputize you, (if he really does) then from what I understand, that will basically solve the problems of those citizens. It will probably end up being the safest county in the country lol.

the only thing that scares me about that, is the potential for abuse (of power) and a deputy attempt to arrest someone and that end up being an illegal arrest.

 

[Dfwkid]

The sheriffs would have to give their deputies a crash course on making legal arrests and other issues.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

The sheriffs would have to give their deputies a crash course on making legal arrests and other issues.

I was hearing that they werent going to be allowed to do that unless they were with another regular paid officer, or unless they went to the police academy.

 

[Spats McGee]

We've wandered into He Said, She Said, I Heard speculation. Thus, closed.

From the Legal Forum Rules:

Note: The Legal Forum is for the discussion of the law as it is and how the law actually applies in RKBA matters, not the way we think things should be or the way we wish they were. Comments and opinions should be based on legal principles and supported where appropriate with reference to legal authority, including court decisions, statutes and scholarly articles. Comments based on wishful thinking may be openly refuted or simply deleted by the staff.