Student Op-Ed Dismantle’s Preemption Attacks

Colleges aren’t exactly bastions of pro-gun activism. The bigger the school, the less likely you are to find a sizeable pro-gun population there, or so it would seem.

However, not that long ago, I ran a story about an op-ed from the University of Miami in Ohio. It was a defense of preemption written by a student who didn’t seem to be particularly pro-gun. It turns out that the op-ed was actually the result of an assignment in a class that addresses federalism and local government.

Since I saw that piece, I’ve seen others that I just didn’t get to for various reasons, but today, I found this one that took an interesting approach to the question of whether local governments should be able to enact their own gun control laws.

First and foremost, allowing Ohio cities to enact their own gun laws is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects all citizens’ right to obtain and bear arms. If an Ohio city, or rather any lower level of government, were to enact its own gun laws limiting this freedom, it would be in direct violation of this amendment.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as established by the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, meaning that it trumps all other laws or ordinances made by lower levels of government. Essentially, the Second Amendment is a sure-proof protection against adding gun restrictions, meaning that Ohio cities cannot enact their own gun laws.

…

Finally, allowing Ohio cities to establish their own gun laws not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but it also violates the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution, in alignment with the U.S. Constitution, states in Article 1, Section 4: “The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security…” Building on this idea, in the Ohio Revised Code, the preemption law affirms the state’s authority to regulate all laws and ordinances regarding firearms. Under this preemption law (Section 9.68), any ordinances or laws made regarding guns at lower levels are prohibited.

The writer also noted the confusion that would come from every locality being able to make their own gun control laws, but that’s not what really got me here.

While the author cites the Ohio Constitution and the preemption law itself, and notes that the law has been upheld in the courts, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution is what I found so interesting.

See, the author focuses on cities being prohibited in her argument, because that seemed to be the assignment, but the same argument could be made that the Second Amendment is “sure-proof protection against adding gun restrictions” at the state level as well. 

This isn’t an unusual argument, of course, even if many gun rights advocates don’t expressly mention the Supremacy Clause while doing so. Our constitutionally protected rights in the Constitution are protected, at least in theory, from anyone at any level trying to take them away. That was especially emphasized thanks to the 14th Amendment’s Incorporation Clause.

In other words, the argument she makes isn’t just one against local ordinances, but against gun control itself. She doesn’t phrase it that way, but the implication is pretty obvious. One would be hard-pressed to read it any other way, so far as I can tell.

Honestly, it’s just nice to see someone in a college course at a large university actually show some respect to our rights like this. I won’t see much of it, of course, because it is a college in the United States, but I’ll take what I can get.

Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.

Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.