HUR56 - Would it end up making things worse?

[Ruark]

HJR56 - Proposing a constitutional amendment to remove legislative authority to regulate the wearing of arms.

If this gets on the ballot, and gets passed, could it end up allowing cities/counties to enact their own gun laws by removing the preemption that now exists at state level?

I can't see that passing. The headaches would be horrific - you'd have to constantly be taking it on and off as you passed through one town after another, assuming you would be familiar with each town's laws.

[Keith B]

HJR56 - Proposing a constitutional amendment to remove legislative authority to regulate the wearing of arms.

If this gets on the ballot, and gets passed, could it end up allowing cities/counties to enact their own gun laws by removing the preemption that now exists at state level?

I can't see that passing. The headaches would be horrific - you'd have to constantly be taking it on and off as you passed through one town after another, assuming you would be familiar with each town's laws.

Missouri used to be that way and allowed municipalities to prohibit open carry. Concealed carry is protected by state preemption. They just recently passed legislation preempting cities from prohibiting licensed open carry. However, they clearly state that if you are openly carrying you must present your license upon request

(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;

They go on to state

(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest;

But they don't need reasonable suspicion to ask you to detain you and ask for your license.

[TXBO]

It wouldn't make things worse if they remove the authority from all local jurisdictions.

[srothstein]

While I do not see this passing, it would not affect the preemption law. If the state legislature has not authority to regulate the wearing of arms because it is a right protected by the state constitution, neither would the cities or counties have that authority. They have to abide by the constitution also.

[Charles L. Cotton]

While I do not see this passing, it would not affect the preemption law. If the state legislature has not authority to regulate the wearing of arms because it is a right protected by the state constitution, neither would the cities or counties have that authority. They have to abide by the constitution also.

I agree on both points.

Chas.

[RogueUSMC]

Would it then require an AG opinion to hold over a municipality's head when they try to restrict unconstitutionally because there is no statute against it? Seems like it would be solving one problem but creating another?

[RogueUSMC]

lol...after I hit enter on that last post I thought, "duh, isn't that what legislation does? Fix one problem by creating what might or might not be a lesser problem?"...lol

[joe817]

lol...after I hit enter on that last post I thought, "duh, isn't that what legislation does? Fix one problem by creating what might or might not be a lesser problem?"...lol

It appears to me that the Local Gov't Code which prohibits local governments from passing regulation that supersedes that of the State:

"LGC §229.001. FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:

(1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose;
(2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;
(3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a
business under the municipality’s fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use
regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to
circumvent the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
(4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural
disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public
health and safety;
(5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health
and safety, except that 25 pounds or less of black powder for each private
residence and 50 pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not
subject to regulation; or
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed
to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government
Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in
or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or
other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.
(d) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(4) does not authorize the seizure
or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully
carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition."
---
Last amended by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1210 (S.B. 1400), Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 2013.

Of course, that's what it appears to me. I've been wrong before. IANAL.