Preemption laws aren't exactly complicated. They dictate that local governments cannot create gun laws; they must come from the state. It's not rocket science, but a surprising number of localities don't seem to be able to comprehend this simple fact. That includes Alachua County in Florida, which tried to decide they could suspend the sale of things like firearms during a state of emergency, which they can't do anymore, and prohibit firearms at a wildlife sanctuary.
Florida Carry was unamused, and since I know a lot of those guys, I can guess just how unamused they were.
So, the county wisely decided it didn't want that particular smoke.
The county also amended regulations on firearms Tuesday.
Florida Carry, Inc., a nonprofit advocating for Second Amendment protections, issued a notice in July that four provisions of Alachua County ordinances regulate firearms in a way that violates state law.
Florida law prevents firearms from being regulated locally and renders any existing ordinances null and void.
The provisions being preempted limit the sale, dispensing and transportation of firearms; prohibit firearm use on designated county waters; restrict the carrying of firearms or weapons into the county courthouse; and allow signs prohibiting weapons to be posted in courthouses.
The commission unanimously approved repeals or amendments for all four provisions.
“I'm not happy to make the motion,” Prizzia said at the September meeting. “I believe that home rule and local authorities should have the ability to make ordinances and rules related to gun control in our communities to keep our residents and our public servants safe.”
Well, first of all, whether you believe in home rule or not, the truth is that the county doesn't have the authority to do what it was trying to do.
Second, nothing that was on the table would have made anyone safer. In fact, banning guns at a wildlife sanctuary could have unintended consequences as wild animals can be a danger to humans. While I love dogs, I've been attacked by them before, and I much prefer to face that kind of threat armed. A wild animal preserve would likely have plenty of others that could act in such a way to warrant a defensive gun use.
Plus, if someone follows the law, they're likely to put their gun in their car, which means someone could break into it and steal the gun. Now, tell me how that's the fault of someone who would have had the gun on their person were it not for this inane crap?
Speaking of inane crap, let's hear from the resident anti-gunners.
During the same meeting, Kathleen Walston Pagan, a 69-year-old member of gun violence-prevention organization Moms Demand Action, spoke against the amendments.
“People that want to have firearms, why don't they join the well-regulated militia, our police, or our military?" Pagan said.
Now, this is a member of Moms Demand Action, one of those "we support the Second Amendment but..." organizations, when they bother to even pretend they support it, yet Pagan here thinks that if we want to own a gun, we should get a job with the police or enlist in the military? She thinks that's clever?
Especially since I'll put money down on the fact that she's arguing "well-regulated militia" here meaning the National Guard, not as it was understood in the 18th century.
In other words, this is your reminder that no matter what they try to tell you, they don't want anyone to have a gun that's not directly answerable to the political power structure, preferably them.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member