According to Colorado’s state constitution, an individual’s right “to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property” shall not “be called in question.”
But now that Colorado has become the first state in the nation to repeal its firearm preemption law, that right is very much in question. Forty-four states have a preemption law — a law that prevents cities and towns from regulating firearms more restrictively than the state as a whole.
With the passage of Senate Bill 21-256, Colorado has become the first state to reverse course after having such a law in place. Colorado abandoned preemption and replaced it with a law whereby “a local government is permitted to enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory.”
Crucially, “the ordinance, regulation, or law may not be less restrictive than state law.” Localities can make their own choices — but only if those choices are in the direction of more gun control.
The dial only turns one way. But gun control advocates have worked hard to obscure this fact. Advocates of the repeal framed the new law as one focused on enabling “local control” — a point that would be hard to argue with if it were actually true.
As a basis for S.B. 21-256, Colorado’s General Assembly found that “officials of local governments are uniquely equipped to make determinations as to regulations necessary in their local jurisdictions.” Framing the issue as one of “local control” even seems to imply that gun rights advocates, who often lean conservative or libertarian in their politics, should support repealing preemption according to their own principles of favoring local autonomy over central control. But this is demonstrably wrong. And no one should be cowed by such an argument.
To be clear, we are not talking about the ability of cities and towns to establish less restrictive gun laws. The repeal of preemption only allows local areas to set more restrictive laws than the state. “Local control” is a complete misnomer when the “control,” like a ratchet, can only go in one direction: toward a tightening of the rules. That is not local autonomy but rather a centralized effort to promote greater restriction on individuals’ right to keep and bear arms.
Proponents of this one-way “local control” also fail to acknowledge the sound reasoning behind state preemption rules. A natural, fundamental, unalienable right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to a confusing patchwork of rules and regulations. Any firearms laws should be readily understandable to the average citizen, whose need for self-defense does not change based on lines on a map.
Natural rights don’t vary from place to place. Since the natural right of self-defense exists everywhere, legal protections of that right should not arbitrarily change because of the simple act of crossing a street into the next town.
Gun-control advocates insist that some areas are especially violent and should be able to set stricter policies. But this is the usual fallacy on their part. Anti-gun activists seek to prevent crime by disarming law-abiding individuals rather than enabling those individuals to defend themselves against criminals (who are more than willing to breach local gun laws in the process of committing far worse acts).
Some cities and towns are, indeed, more violent than others — and in those places, peaceable citizens are in even greater need of armed self-protection. To leave them at the mercy of criminals is deeply immoral and detestable.
Far from making Colorado’s cities safer, the repeal of preemption will make life harder for responsible gun owners. It will almost certainly have a chilling effect on their exercise of a fundamental right, discouraging peaceable citizens from exercising their rights for fear of violating some unknown local law.
It could also result in individuals being prosecuted for the use of firearms in defense of themselves or their families — because they were not within the letter of some local ordinance while keeping an attacker or invader at bay.
It took decades to pass preemption laws in most of America. Now, many states may face a fight over their continued existence.
Other states should take a lesson from Colorado — when it comes to repealing preemption, more so-called “local control” really just means more gun control.
Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is the director of Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms. He primarily focuses on Second Amendment issues.
