One problem with many preemption laws is that they lack any real teeth. Any community can decide to pass local gun control, and then the whole thing has to go through court. People challenging the laws don’t have taxpayers to fund those lawsuits, which makes it more of a challenge to file a suit against these cities in the first place, and if they lose, the lawmakers who passed the measures in the first place are out nothing.
But if they win, they overturn preemption.
Now, a legislator in Ohio is trying to change that with the state’s preemption measure.
An Ohio lawmaker wants to punish cities for passing local gun ordinances by forcing them to pay monetary damages to any citizens who successfully challenge them.
State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, has filed legislation allowing private citizens to sue cities for “punitive or exemplary damages.”
The change applies to Ohio’s preemption statute — asserting state control over the right to regulate firearms.
The law already allows citizens to sue for damages, but Johnson’s proposal makes a five word amendment expanding the scope of what they can ask for.
The bill doesn’t explicitly define “punitive” or “exemplary” damages, but generally speaking, they’re monetary judgements meant to punish a wrongdoer and make an example of them to others.
‘The line must be drawn’
Johnson introduced Ohio Senate Bill 278 last week, portraying it as a way to level the playing field between citizens and government.
“Our citizens should feel emboldened if they are to overturn these unlawful regulations without having to face financial burden for doing what is right,” Johnson said.
“Municipalities, cities, that sort of thing, have deep pockets and lots of lawyers, and the average citizen does not.”
That’s certainly a help.
However, I think there’s something that’s going to be missed here. Namely, while this benefits those who challenge laws that violate preemption, there’s not really any deterrence for municipal leaders to violate it in the first place.
Sure, punitive damages might be issued by a judge or jury, but the people responsible won’t be paying that money out. It’ll be the taxpayers who are footing that particular bill, and even they won’t really notice the crunch enough to hold city officials responsible.
There’s absolutely no downside for these people to at least try and get around preemption, and this measure doesn’t go far enough to make that happen.
Instead, those who pass such laws at the local level, who know they’re breaking state law by doing so, need to be held personally accountable for their actions.
Once local lawmakers themselves face feeling the pinch on a personal level for their actions, they might decide to do something radical like follow the law.
Johnson’s proposal is a simple one, and one that won’t exactly hurt in the long run.
It’s not the solution for putting teeth in preemption, though, because the people paying aren’t the people responsible for breaking the law in the first place.
But it is a good place to start, because people shouldn’t feel threatened with financial ruin for standing up for their rights. Not in the time of our nation’s founding and certainly not today.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
