State's law of preemption hobbles cities' attempt to address gun violence

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. States without preemption are simply minefields to ensnare average people.

How do you expect local more restrictive laws to be effective at all when someone can literally drive 10-20 minutes to obtain or do the same thing without breaking the law? It's like the anti-gun states that whine about ease of gun accees in bordereing states ruining their anti-gun utopias... except on a much smaller scale.

Lack of premtion was a bitch before Ohio got it a few years ago. Guns might be among the most, if not THE most, regulated common items in regards to the number of laws governing them. Basically, your OP proposes a situation where you're expecting law abiding gun owners to know and follow literally dozens of sets of laws if they wish to remain law abiding with absolutley zero effective crime reduction in return. It's a stupid legal theory that taxes society without benefit.

In Ohio about 5yrs after preemption, Columbus, Cincinatti and Cleveland are STILL pushing and suing to get thier private little assault weapon bans back. They still illegally arrest people for laws that are preemptive invalid and get owned in court by the plaintiffs. Do they really believe that a stipid AWB possesion laws make them ANY safer when somone who actually wasnts an assault weapon can drive 15 minutes out of the city and legally buy it?

The first test of any law regarding any political topic I choose to support must answer the following:
Does the law impose a restriction of behavior, freedom or rights on individuals? (Are we losing rights)
If yes, does the law have a real and measureable positive effect on society? (What do we gain from those lost rights)
Is the observed measurable benefit obtained using the least restrivive means possible? (does our loss of rights have good ROI)