Statewide Preemtion another way?

I was thinking about the "battle" for statewide preemption for OC, and wondered, since every time the subject comes up and/or a bill is introduced to get it, it gets shot down, what about getting it anohter way? How about having the wording of the current law allowing municipalities to restrict OC changed from allowing them to flat out make it illegal to limiting their ability to restrict OC only so far as to require a CCW to OC? It's not perfect, it's not true preemption, but maybe it's a step in the right direction?

Well, I'm no expert on this matter but I have to assume a lot of the legislation gets bundled with other issues that are less likely to pass. I haven't read into the policies that were pushed into the process but things like lowering the CCW age, preemption, are bundled with more controversial issues such as campus carry and are inevitably shot down. Again I don't know this to be fact, this is what I've heard.

357SigFan said:

I was thinking about the "battle" for statewide preemption for OC, and wondered, since every time the subject comes up and/or a bill is introduced to get it, it gets shot down, what about getting it anohter way? How about having the wording of the current law allowing municipalities to restrict OC changed from allowing them to flat out make it illegal to limiting their ability to restrict OC only so far as to require a CCW to OC? It's not perfect, it's not true preemption, but maybe it's a step in the right direction?

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it is a lot easier to get a law passed than it is to get it rescinded it later.

Imagine with the present difficulty your are experiencing now, with getting the CHP exception removed later to allow no permit OC.

The reality is, guys, that OC preemption simply isn't a legislative priority. There is no immediacy to get this done. The "push" for preemption, at least at the present time, is very small, not well organized, and, for lack of better words, easy to ignore. When you add that with the fact that, when preemption is attached to a bill, the bill is full of other unpopular provisions that never see the light of day, and very few lawmakers feel like they are placing themselves in jeopardy if they don't support it. I don't think you will find any more legislative support for what you are proposing in this thread than what there is for full preemption. Until this is made a priority by a strong voting bloc or by some savvy lobbyists, it's not likely to happen.