Political Report

By Chris W. Cox

NRA-ILA Executive Director

YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUES ARE NOT ENOUGH.

If you want to DEFEND your right to own and carry a firearm … If your FREEDOM to hunt and shoot is important to you … Then you need to SUPPORT the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. We are the only arm of NRA specifically charged with defending your Second Amendment freedoms on Capitol Hill, and in state legislatures and courtrooms across America.

Visit nraila.org/donate to support NRA-ILA today!

NRA-ILA: (800) 392-8683 NRA-ILA website: nraila.org For related articles, go to nrapublications.org.

The Future of American Freedom Depends on Keeping Pro-Gun Majority in U.S. House

The framers of the Constitution specifically designed the U.S. House of Representatives to give the population of each state direct representation in Congress. House members not only represent their states, they represent the particular concerns of their districts within those states. This is why so many representatives remain staunchly pro gun, even in states where anti-gun politics dominate densely populated areas (and therefore the politics of the state as a whole). California, Illinois, New York and Washington are examples of reliably anti-gun votes in the U.S. Senate that nevertheless feature robust areas of gun culture that contribute pro-gun votes in the House.

While the ins and outs of America’s electoral system might conjure memories of high school civics classes, knowing the details will do more than help you dominate trivia contests. They are fundamental to protecting your most cherished rights.

Members of the House face re-election every two years, so they have a high level of accountability. Needless to say, every other House election coincides with a presidential election, and a strong presidential candidate at the top of the ticket can benefit other candidates by bringing voters to the polls. Off-year elections, however, favor the party whose voters are most engaged and energized.

The number of voting U.S. representatives is currently fixed by law at 435, but congressional districts are reapportioned among the states every 10 years based on their populations as determined by a census. The states themselves also have some flexibility in re-drawing electoral districts, a process that typically occurs after the results of the census are announced. Both political parties will do all they can to protect the districts they hold. And unless there is evidence of unconstitutional discrimination in the drawing of districts, the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled that this is the prerogative of the political process, not the courts.

Members of the House have certain special roles within America’s constitutional system. These include initiating bills for raising revenue and choosing the president in the event of an Electoral College tie.

What does this all mean to gun owners concerned about their rights? In short, it means everything.

Maintaining a pro-gun majority in the House of Representatives is essential if we’re going to not only advance our rights but also to keep the hard-fought gains we’ve made.

And make no mistake, anti-gun activists will launch an all-out effort this November to do whatever it takes to win back control of the House from the current pro-gun majority.

Anti-gun members of Congress are counting on the progressive base’s visceral hatred of President Donald Trump and his agenda for big turnouts at the polls. Their reaction to the president’s unifying and inspiring message at the State of the Union in January was a clear indication of their determination to resist him simply for the sake of resistance and to avenge their stunning electoral defeat in 2016.

In a CBS News poll of viewers, 75 percent said they approved of the State of the Union speech, while 80 percent said they felt the president was trying to unite the country, rather than divide it. Two-thirds said the speech inspired pride.

Yet as lawmakers chanted “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” following a litany of memorials dedicated to American sacrifice, courage and heroism delivered by the president, anti-gun Congressman Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., fled the chamber in undisguised contempt. And he was not alone. An MSNBC pundit dismissed the president’s invocation of church, family, police, military and the national anthem as “tropes of 1950s-era nationalism.”

Even The Washington Post admitted that the reaction of many members of Congress was “embarrassing.” That certainly applies to the repeated scowls from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

The choice for gun owners this November is simple. We can sit idly by and watch the vengeful “resistance” prevail. Or we can re-elect the pro-gun incumbents who rolled back Obama’s Social Security gun ban, voted to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans, sent national reciprocity legislation to the Senate and stopped opportunistic gun control in its tracks.

For those of us who care about our fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, we must stand and fight—there is no other option.

By Chris W. Cox

NRA-ILA Executive Director

Firearm Preemption Laws Protect Our Rights

WITHOUT STATE FIREARM PREEMPTION LAWS, CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES WOULD CREATE LEGAL TRAPS FOR LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS.

Many gun owners are aware of the preemption laws are the only things standing success that we’ve enjoyed with the in their way. expansion of Right-to-Carry laws across Michael Bloomberg-backed Everytown for the country. Starting in 1986, when there Gun Safety has already made it its mission to were only nine states with Right-to-Carry laws, dismantle preemption laws across America. In Florida led the way in adopting a “shall-issue” an Everytown report on violence in American system for issuing concealed-carry permits. cities, the group fails to mention many cities’ Now, there are only eight states that do not have failure to prosecute those who commit violent Right-to-Carry laws, and every state has some crimes with guns or the lenient sentencing type of system in place for issuing carry permits. on those few who are prosecuted. Instead, While the story of Right-to-Carry is well known, Everytown blames firearm preemption laws many are not aware of the equally important for “barring cities from passing local gun laws, success that we’ve had advancing firearm which hamstring them from taking any action preemption laws in state legislatures. These of their own.” Which is, of course, nonsense. laws generally preclude local governments from Cities are free to “take action” and enforce enacting any additional regulation on firearms the many state gun laws on the books. or ammunition beyond state law. Without Enforcing laws that prohibit violent felons from firearm preemption, gun owners would be possessing firearms and that provide enhanced subjected to a patchwork of hundreds or even sentences for offenders who use firearms to thousands of different sets of laws in every state. commit violent crimes would be a good start. Such a system, where a simple trip to the But, prosecuting dangerous criminals is hard grocery store could involve three or four different work and blaming crime on law-abiding gun regulatory regimes, is a potential trap for every owners is easy. Anti-gun local politicians in gun owner in America. states with strong preemption laws would relish In fact, without firearm preemption, our wins on the authority to restrict gun owners in the same Right-to-Carry would be hollow victories. If every way that Bloomberg himself enjoyed during his city, town, village or county could restrict or inhibit long term as mayor of New York City. law-abiding gun owners’ ability to carry a firearm New York is one of the few states that for defense of themselves and their families, then lacks strong firearm preemption, so New carrying a firearm would no longer be a right. York City has been free to enact a slew of its Anti-gun activists are acutely aware that own gun control laws. Just a few of the most preemption laws are all that stand in the way of egregious ordinances include a prohibition their agenda in our nation’s cities. Many of our cities on all rifles and shotguns capable of holding are controlled by politicians who would like nothing more than five rounds, punitive licensing fees more than to enact gun controllers’ long wish list of and an absurd requirement that gun owners ineffective and overbroad gun ordinances. Firearm who have complied with the city’s onerous

processes must still receive special permission before transporting their firearms. Worst of all, even those few who are able to get a carry permit elsewhere in the state cannot carry in New York City without a special permit from the NYPD.

When it comes to carrying a firearm for self-defense, the city’s laws represent a prime example of the abuses that a discretionary permit system leads to. While lawabiding gun owners cannot exercise their constitutional rights, those who are willing to pay a “gun license expediter” often find that not even a disqualifying criminal history will stop the NYPD from issuing them a carry permit, assuming the price is right.

Just last year, several NYPD officers and a license expediter were charged for their corrupt practices in administering and manipulating the city’s licensing system. This type of official corruption is the necessary result of a discretionary “may-issue” permitting system that does nothing more than facilitate the discriminatory issuance of a permit that is required to exercise a constitutional right.

You might think that the city’s practices would be an embarrassment to the gun control movement, but Bloomberg and his front group Everytown use the Big Apple as their shining example of how a city can regulate our rights. Firearm preemption laws are the only thing preventing this “shining example” from being copied by cities across the country.

And now, the very concept of firearm preemption is under attack.

In January, a bill was introduced in Washington state to eliminate firearm preemption. The proposal would have completely repealed the state’s 1983 preemption statute. While the bill was defeated through the hard work of NRA-ILA and pro-gun activists in Washington, it serves as a warning of what anti-gun activists would like to accomplish: a complete reversal of our progress on preemption.

It’s not difficult to understand the impact of this bill if it had passed. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2012 Washington State had close to 2,000 local governments—including counties, cities and towns. King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, three of the most densely populated counties, had anywhere from 86 to 157 units of local government within each county. Once each locality has the authority to build upon state laws and adopt its own rules, law-abiding citizens who cross an arbitrary jurisdictional line to work, shop, visit or travel will have to comply with whatever mix of firearm and ammunition restrictions the local lawmakers view as politically expedient.

Even with the current preemption law in place, the city of Seattle tried to enact restrictive gun control ordinances. One example was the city’s decision to implement a ban on firearms in public “parks” like community centers, sports fields, playgrounds, performing art venues and others owned or managed by the city. Washington state gun owners successfully sued and overturned the policy for violating the preemption law.

These types of egregious abuses of gun owners’ rights are exactly what started the movement for firearm preemption laws in the first place. The Village of Morton Grove, Ill., banned all handguns in 1981. The move came just five years after a nearly identical law had been adopted in the District of Columbia.

The District’s situation as a federal enclave was unique, but Morton Grove’s handgun ban proved to state legislatures across the country how far localities would go to trample on our firearms freedom. By the mid-1980s, many states had already adopted preemption laws. Our work on preemption was already well under way when the Right-to-Carry movement took off.

While more than 40 states now have expansive firearm preemption laws, NRA-ILA has been hard at work improving the laws already on the books by ensuring the laws protect both firearms and ammunition, clearly cover firearm accessories and create a private enforcement mechanism to stop preemption violations.

It may seem unbelievable that local governments would knowingly violate state law just to infringe upon the rights of their constituents. However, it’s been such a widespread issue that NRA’s model firearm preemption law now includes a provision to provide gun owners and organizations like NRA the option to take local governments to court for their unlawful ordinances. To provide incentives for localities to repeal their offending laws rather than go to court, NRA’s model law also provides that local governments that lose these cases are responsible for the challengers’ legal fees and costs.

One such law was recently put to good effect in Ohio.

The Ohio Legislature adopted its firearm preemption law in 2006. It provides for uniform laws throughout the state for firearms, their components and their ammunition. The statute additionally grants those who successfully challenge local ordinances the right to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees for bringing the action.

The city of Cleveland first launched an unsuccessful lawsuit to have the preemption statute invalidated. The Ohio Supreme Court rebuffed that effort in 2010.

Nevertheless, in 2015, Cleveland brazenly enacted a slate of local gun control laws that in many cases exceeded state law. It was the very sort of action prohibited by the state preemption law. The lower courts sided with gun owners and invalidated the offending ordinances, and, at the end of January, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear the city’s appeal of those decisions. Now all that remains is for the lower court to award those who challenged the ordinances their costs and fees. In the future, perhaps Cleveland officials can find a better use of taxpayer funds than defending unlawful gun control laws.

Preemption is generally a battle at the state and local level, but the fight for national concealed carry reciprocity has many similarities. Rather than invalidating local gun controls, national reciprocity ensures that states that do not recognize the Second Amendment are nonetheless preempted from enforcing their unconstitutional laws against law-abiding concealed carriers.

That’s why NRA continues to push national reciprocity as our number one legislative priority. That effort culminated in the best reciprocity bill yet passing out of the U.S. House last December, but we must keep up the pressure to advance reciprocity in the U.S. Senate.

Whether the fight is at the local, state or federal level, the NRA will continue to pursue preemption as one of the best ways to protect our firearms freedom.