Does OH court ruling send signal about Seattle's challenge to state preemption?

" Seattle’s anti-gun administration may have gotten a strong signal about the city’s chances of winning a court battle to skirt Washington State’s 1983 preemption act, courtesy of yesterday’s ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that upholds the Buckeye State’s 2006 preemption statute....

"...Nickels must have thought they were all bluffing; a collosal miscalculation because, in this column's experience, SAF and NRA don't bluff. Just ask the cities of New Orleans and San Francisco..."

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...-send-signal-about-seattle-parks-gun-ban-case

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/23yspkw

Never fear, before it's all over, this issue of "preemption" will be a giant game of "Whack-A-Mole". Knock down one law and several others will pop up. Wouldn't it be nice if their was a "punch card" system for Mayors and their entourage of fools? One where every law that got struck down caused their "card to get punched". Three punches and your out of office. Would make them think twice before proposing, and strong-arming through, laws that are patently against State Law or even Unconstitutional.

These idiots know that he court system takes forever to resolve anything. The time it takes from passage to being struck down takes years. By then they have a new approach ready to go. As an example, how long did it take Chicago and Washington, D.C. to have "backup legislation" in place? Even a financial penalty on the Cities for such legislation would be nice to see except for the fact that it would fall on the wallets of the taxpayers. It might be an incentive for them to make better choices when they select their leaders, though.

amlevin said:

Even a financial penalty on the Cities for such legislation would be nice to see except for the fact that it would fall on the wallets of the taxpayers. It might be an incentive for them to make better choices when they select their leaders, though.

Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding!

We have a winner. That is EXACTLY what is needed. The gun ban in Seattle never had widespread support even within the city itself, yet they went ahead anyway, because they knew they had nothing to loose, and they only had to spend a few thousand to make the signs, since their legal representation was free.

They were only truly ******* off a small group of Seattle voters in truth, but if there were monetary penalties for attempting to enforce a "administrative fiat" that should have never been in the first place, I think you would see Joe and Jane (dont care about guns either way) Taxpayer, get mad fast watching their tax money tick away each day on a lost cause.

I think somewhere around 2000 to 5000 dollars a day would do well as a deterrent, yes?

FMCDH said:

I think somewhere around 2000 to 5000 dollars a day would do well as a deterrent, yes?

Click to expand...

As slow as some politicians "get the point" it would only have to be a couple hundred a day and it would still cost them a fortune.