I absolutely loathe the primary argument against reciprocity. Opponents claim that because everywhere is different, communities should be free to decide their own gun control laws based on their own needs.

I hate this argument for two reasons. 

The first is that it blatantly ignores the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is, you know, a right. As a right, it shouldn't be up for infringement at all, but opponents of reciprocity seem to accept that this is simply not the case--as well as assuming that gun control is actually a fix for anything except the problem of too much liberty.

The second issue I have is that it's only a one-way street. They say communities should be able to decide their own gun laws, but that's not what they mean. What they mean is that if a community wants more gun control, it should be able to have it, but if one wants less, they're just slap out of luck.

Because of this, I derive a great deal of joy over seeing local governments get slapped down for trying to challenge preemption, and we've seen it time and time again.

The latest was in North Dakota, of all places.

The latest was Fargo, North Dakota, where city leaders apparently decided they could make their own gun laws, despite the state preemption law saying the opposite.

According to a report from NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), on December 19, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a lawsuit brought by the city of Fargo against the state legislature to block a bill passed back in 2023 that strengthened the state’s preemption law.

According to NRA-ILA, Fargo has banned gun sales in residential-zoned areas, even by licensed FFLs, for many years. The city filed suit against HB 1340 shortly after the bill passed in 2023, arguing that the law violated their ability for local control.

Of course, the new law did violate their ability for local control. That’s exactly what the legislature had intended for it to do. In the recent ruling, the state Supreme Court found that infringing upon the Second Amendment does not fall under the purview of local control, much to the chagrin of Fargo leaders.

“HB 1340 enhances North Dakota’s firearm preemption law, stating that the Legislature is the sole authority in the state allowed to regulate firearms,” NRA-ILA wrote. “This prevents localities, like Fargo, from creating a confusing patchwork of gun laws in the state and ensures that citizens enjoy the same abilities to exercise their Second Amendment rights across the whole state.”

In its ruling, the court determined that the preemption law is constitutional, leaving Fargo out in the cold with its gun sales ban.

The truth of the matter is that the Fargo measure didn't actually make anyone safer. All it did was try to ban kitchen-table FFLs, who are bound by all state and federal laws regarding the lawful sale of firearms. Gun stores were already required to use retail- or commercial-zoned buildings for what should be pretty obvious reasons. They're businesses, after all.

The measure also never touched black market dealers because, well, those sales are already illegal. I sincerely doubt any black market deal is going to look at the law and figure, "Well, I may be willing to risk state and federal law enforcement, but zoning officials are just too much for me."

So yeah, it got slapped down and the courts upheld it because that's how it works.

What's more, no one is less safe, even if gun control actually worked as advertised. Licensed gun dealers aren't the problem and we all know it.

Now, Fargo can stop trying to hassle them and can start focusing on, I don't know...bad guys, maybe?