Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: How can a local ordinace ban open carry if its legal in the state?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    How can a local ordinace ban open carry if its legal in the state?

    Im not familiar with law and was wondering how this works.

    Im from California where UOC is legal(no license required). However, I hear that LA wants to ban open carry within its city limits. I was under the impression that local law can not preempt state law(i.e a city cant have a drinking age of 18 if the states is 21). Do I have this all wrong? I open carry in 6-7 different cities regularly and dont want to get thrown in jail just because one of those citys banned open carry without my knowledge. I used the power of google to no avail.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    PDX, Oregon
    I found this:

    Which states:

    Preemption -- Complete state preemption of firearms law except a city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places for those who do not hold a license to carry a concealed handgun.


    This is the same as my state of Oregon. Only difference is that I am actually able to get a CHL (Shall Issue FTW) and therefore, all city and county ordinances that pertain to Firearms do not apply to me. (Basically my Concealed Carry Permit, allows me to Open Carry anywhere in the state and loaded at that) <--Ridiculous I know....
    Last edited by R-Rizzo; 08-12-2011 at 06:07 AM.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    I really hate the use of the term, "pre-emption" in this context. It's very widely used, but it is a technical legal term that has a specific meaning, and this ain't it. Pre-emption applies when two or more entities have sovereign power, but one's more powerful than the other in the subject matter context. E.g., the federal power to regulate interstate commerce pre-empts the power of states to control the influx of goods and services across their borders; and the power of the states to regulate matters of health, education, public welfare, and public safety pre-empts the federal government's power to regulate ownership of firearms.

    Where one entity is a sovereign, in this case, California, and the other is merely a municipal corporation (Los Angeles) created by the state, then the question is whether the normal rule that a creature can exercise no greater authority and power than that which its creator endowed it, applies. Some states, and this is purely a matter of the constitutional law of the particular state, have "home rule" provisions, which grant localities the power to enact ordinances having the effect of general law. If there is no "home rule" provision in California, then the "Dillon Rule" applies, meaning that the acts of the localities' legislative bodies have no effect; technically speaking, they are void as ultra vires, and cannot be enforced.

    So read the constitution of the state you're interested in, and see what it says. Next check the code and see whether the legislature has enacted a "home rule" provision as a matter of statutory regulation of cities, counties, and towns. That's pretty much the only way to tell (unless you know a local attorney who has no personal agenda and no axe of his own to grind, and understands this issue).
    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Pocono Mountains of PA
    Vaughn testified that he did not intend to shoot Robinson at all and shot only at the ground to stop Robinson from hurting him, but was unable to explain how Robinson was shot in the back.
    Commonwealth v. Vaughn, 263 Va. 31, 36, 557 S.E.2d 220 (2002).

    ... obviously a suicide.

    tyc :-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts