the Penalties for Violating Firearms Preemption Law, which forces the repeal of all regulations and policies that violate the firearms preemption law of 1987
The answer is right in the article:Why does Florida need a law to enforce an existing law?
While Florida has had a law on its books since 1987 that makes it illegal to pass gun regulations beyond state statutes, there was no enforcement mechanism in place. As a result, towns and cities have created ordinances at will. In the process, many of them have criminalized otherwise completely law-abiding citizens who unintentionally ran afoul of arbitrary, localized gun rules.
The answer is right in the article:
TFred
And since you brought it up, I am nominating you to carry forward and find a sponsor for a bill to do just that. Call on me if you think I can help, but you get the honor of taking the point on this.
stay safe.
I just wrote Delegate Lingamfelter and asked him to do just that. I also asked him to work on getting intent to commit a crime added to 18.2-308.1....
Roscoe
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 13: "Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power."
I particularly like that phrase, "shall not be infringed." Is there really any question what that phrase means? Still, as an attorney, and one whose practice involves a lot of firearms litigation, I might have financial problems if that provision of the Constitution were given effect. All those gun-regulation statutes would just go away.
I shudder to think what we might have left today if the Constitution said "can only be infringed a little bit..."No.
Because apparently even the founders did not really mean "shall not be infringed" as an absolute. This I know because SCOTUS tells me so. (and no points off to anyone who sang that last part)
Or if The Fonders really did mean it as an absolute, the fact that many infringements have continued for so long means that the infringements get a pass based on their longivity. This I also know because SCOTUS tells me so.
stay safe.
I shudder to think what we might have left today if the Constitution said "can only be infringed a little bit..."
:uhoh:
TFred
Prescriptive infringements = imperial prerogatives, because the lord and master says so...