by TGM staff
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) scored again with its effort to eliminate local laws and regulations that go against a state preemption statute, this time in Utah, the seventh state where the gun rights organization has launched a campaign to erase outdated local regulations.
SAF recently contacted several cities and towns in the Beehive State, after combing through ordinances and regulations to find rules that run counter to the preemption statute. SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told TGM that the effort in Utah has been more warmly received than elsewhere, and the contacted communities appear to be cooperating.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, SAF contacted 49 Utah communities, calling on them to repeal local ordinances that conflict with state firearms law. Such statewide statutes, or preemption laws, were adopted in several states over the past two decades. Many of those laws are modeled after a state preemption statute passed more than 30 years ago in Washington state, where SAF is headquartered.
The Tribune story was inspired by the Sandy City corporation’s response to the SAF letter. A few days after the story was published, the Sandy City Council voted unanimously to repeal its laws restricting carrying guns in public places. It no longer will be a violation of city code to pack a gun in a park, on a trail, golf course or in any other city recreational facility.
Sandy is a suburb of Salt Lake City with a population of about 90,000.
Gottlieb told the Tribune essentially the same thing he explained to TGM more than two years ago when the project kicked off in Washington and Virginia.
“We’re going state by state, one state at time, going through every single ordinance of every city and county in every state finding where the cities and counties have ordinances enacted that are in conflict with state law … and then contacting each one of them to remove the ordinances,” he explained.
It falls in line with SAF’s long-stated mission of “Winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”
Perhaps the most contentious experience has been with communities in Maryland, where SAF’s effort got a considerable amount of publicity. Local anti-gun officials didn’t care to be told their laws were in violation of state statute, especially when the news comes from one of the nation’s highest-profile gun rights groups.
However, SAF’s reputation for litigation appears to carry some weight, especially because of the victories that the group has racked up. SAF has sued Chicago, the State of Illinois, the City of Seattle, the District of Columbia, the State of California and other government entities.
SAF General Counsel Miko Tempski has received responses from several of the cities contacted. It is not unusual for local governments to research their questionable statutes before deciding what course of action to take. Attorneys for a couple of communities have promised quick action.
Utah, like many states, has reserved most gun-regulating authority to the Legislature — aside from allowing cities to restrict the discharge or brandishing of firearms.
“We’re just trying to make sure our ordinances are in keeping with what the state Legislature has said we’re allowed to do and not allowed to do,” Sandy spokeswoman Nicole Martin had told the newspaper before the vote.
Sandy City Attorney Walter Miller, in his earlier written response to SAF before the vote, said the city already recognized problems with the ordinances in question and “have directed that they not be enforced. … I expect support [to repeal them] from the City Council on this change since I believe their respect for the Second Amendment closely mirrors that of your organization.”
