In the debates about the DC gun law and the Supreme Court case concerning it, I recently heard one argument that I don’t know how to address: that DC, or any other city, has broad power to enact civic ordinances much more restrictive than the laws governing non-incorporated areas. While that’s admittedly true, I don’t know where this crosses the line into unconstitutional laws. Just what is the legal doctrine in the US about what restrictions cities can enact and what they can’t?
Possibly unrelated to the topic, but I don’t believe so. If you watch Tombstone, for instance, or read Wyatt Earp’s autobiography, the illegality of bringing guns into town is mentioned. The idea then was to keep guns out of the areas where there’s a bunch of guys all getting drunk and fighting over the prettiest hooker, games of poker, etc.
The argument, as given in the movie, is that no one is disallowing the ownership of guns, they’re just talling people to not bring them in to town. But of course, what if you live in town?
There’s a good hundred years of enforcing laws of this sort, so it makes sense that they would expand in scope somewhat (if this is the sort of law being discussed), and also gain the power of previous court rulings in favor (can’t think of the word for that at them moment.) Probably what the laws do is pretty much disallow anyone to bring guns into town–even if they live there–even if you wanted to start a gun shop, or bring a gun from outside to your house and keep it there, unless you get some sort of special permit which involves a lot of rigamarole to acquire. Technically, this wouldn’t be illegalising ownership of guns, it would just be setting up “safe zones” that have methods, however elaborate, to allow you your 2nd amendment guaranteed right to possess a gun.
And then of course, there’s always the possibility that the law is constitutionally unacceptable. But, for it to be struck down it could potentially need to go through 80 layers of courts and appeals to get up to the Supreme Court to be slapped down. As the saying goes, “It ain’t illegal if you don’t get caught.”
Saying that you’re still technically the owner of an object, but have no legal right to keep it in your possession, is a mockery.
So I suppose I’m asking what can’t a city ordinance do? If I’m head of the city council, can I always grant permits for rallies in the park to the local chapter of the Republican party, and always deny such permits to the Democrats?
Well, the city ordinance in DC banning handguns a) is still liable to the 2nd amendment because the 14th require the federal gov’t to ensure that no local or state gov’t infringes on Constitutional rights and b) you can own a handgun in DC, but you have to store it disassembled and never assemble it within city limits. It’s just as much a mockery in 2nd amendment terms but at least it’s not a Catch-22.
Actually, DC is directly subject to the 2nd amendment whether or not the amendment is incorporated by the 14th (which until now it has not been).
As for the OP, I’m not aware of any reason localities are different from state governments when analyzing the constitutionality of laws. It matters for some things like lawsuits under section 1983, but I don’t think it matters for a facial challenge to an ordinance.
What a municipality may or may not do is governed by what powers the state government gives that municipality, all municipalities, or all municipalities of the same class as that one. (I.e., “Any municipality may enact a zoning ordinance which complies with the following standards…” vs. “The city of Port Cecil may enact a harbor ordinance to govern the operations of its harbor and port.” vs. “All cities over 50,000 in population may enact an ordinance providing for public housing and regulating its use.”)
What powers a state may delegate to all. some, or one of its municipalities are, of course, regulated by what powers the state has based on its own constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
And gun control is a very questionable subject, as evidenced by the numerous recent threads.
D.C. is in a class by itself – its powers are delegated by Congress and may be overridden by Congress.
With regard to guns, some states do not allow cities to enact gun laws (or other laws) on their own hook. This is known as preemption. The states reserve their right to control certain things and do not allow their municipalities to enact more stringent controls. Preemption is pretty common, but not universal (witness New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, et al.). Further, some cities object to preemption. Philadelphia is currently fighting to have Pennsylvania’s state law overturned so they have the right to enact their own gun laws. However, since they derive their right to self-determination through the permission of the state (see Dillon’s Rule), municipalities don’t have much standing to overturn state preemption laws.
As far as I am concerned, what is good in one part of a state should be good in all parts of a state. However, that is not the case everywhere, and more’s the pity. Inconsistency is not something that people should be proud of.
No new posts for a while so I guess I’ll round this thread off. So the short answer to my OP is that cities have to operate by the laws governing incorporation and city charters; set by a state government or in D.C.'s case by Congress. So they can only restrict what they’re permitted to restrict. Thanks all!