The term "preemption," when used in the context of state gun laws, means that the state legislature has decided that all gun control measures, with some state exceptions, need to come from the state itself, not local governments. This creates a unified system of laws that is a lot easier to keep track of for people traveling.
But all too often, preemption laws just say local governments can't do something. It doesn't do anything to punish them when they ignore the law.
As a result, some anti-gun communities have passed local gun control, thumbing their noses at preemption, and hoping the courts won't stop them. They rarely win, but even if they lose, they're not really out anything. All that's been lost is some money spent on lawyer fees and little else.
A bill in Ohio, however, wants to put some teeth in the state's preemption law.
A controversial bill that would allow Ohioans to seek punitive damages against municipalities over gun regulations that don’t align with state law is moving forward in the Statehouse.
Senate Bill 278 sharpens an ongoing dispute between state lawmakers and local governments over who controls firearm policy and to what extent. The legislation was cleared in a 4–2 vote during an early March meeting of the Senate Local Government Committee, with all present Republican members voting in favor.
Supporters say the provision is necessary to strengthen the existing state law that prohibits cities from creating their own gun regulations, while critics argue it would expose local governments to expensive lawsuits and erode their role in protecting communities.
...Opponents, however, insist the legislation could place cities at financial risk and consequently discourage local officials from taking action to address public safety concerns.
Of course, that's kind of the point. It's meant to be a deterrent. Saying that it could put cities at financial risk is like saying the problem with murder laws is that it stops people from killing one another.
Like, yeah. Duh.
Preemption laws are designed to prevent lawmakers from passing local gun control, and if they face penalties that could screw the city's finances for doing so, they're less likely to decide the law doesn't apply to them. It's not a bug in the bill. It's a feature.
However, leftists only pay attention to laws that are convenient to them. For them, it's about control, and any law that stops them from exerting it is a law that needs to be pushed aside.
There's a lot a local government can do to protect the community. There are tons of ways that don't involve gun control and that are actually more effective. Saying that preemption prevents that is stupid.
Then again, these are the people who see financial penalties for anti-gun cities as some kind of unintended consequence, even though the entire reason for the bill is to create financial penalties.
Granted, I'd rather the local officials who pass these laws be forced to pay out of their own pockets. I think that would be a better deterrent than this, but the fact that these leftist dipsticks seem to see the punishment for breaking the law as a bad thing is telling.
Of course, considering how they also let dangerous felons run around stabbing people on public transportation without trying to stop them, it's a rare moment of some kind of consistency from the left.
