This Is Why Preemption Laws Remain Under Attack

In theory, preemption laws should stop local governments from trying to push through local gun control. After all, they know it won’t stand as it violates state law, so why bother? Why not do something more productive, like licking door knobs and calling them “Lucille.”

Yeah, I’m not running on much sleep right now, so things could get weird. Anywho…preemption.

The truth of the matter is that despite the laws on the books in numerous states, you still get little twerp in local government who thinks he or she matters more than they do, trying to cross the line.

In Texas, of all places, a recent case not only highlights this problem, but also why it’s going to remain a problem.

A critical Second Amendment case out of Texas is now at a pivotal moment — one that could determine whether government officials can ignore clear law and still escape accountability.

At the center of the case is CJ Grisham, a Texas Gun Rights Foundation attorney and retired law enforcement officer, who was repeatedly denied his lawful right to carry a firearm into a courthouse — despite holding valid federal and state credentials.

Now, after a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Grisham has formally objected, asking the district court to reject that recommendation and allow the case to move forward.

The outcome could have far-reaching implications for gun owners across Texas and beyond.

A Direct Conflict Between State Law and Local Policy

At its core, the dispute is straightforward.

Texas law explicitly allows certain qualified individuals — including retired law enforcement officers with proper credentials — to carry firearms in locations where others may not.

At the same time, Texas statutes make clear that local governments cannot impose stricter gun regulations than what state law permits.

Yet according to the lawsuit, Smith County officials enforced an internal policy that directly contradicted state law by denying Grisham entry, threatening him with arrest, and forcing him to disarm.

The legal question now before the court is whether those officials can avoid accountability by claiming qualified immunity, even after being shown the law and presented with valid credentials.

Now, understand that qualified immunity has its place. People like police officers shouldn’t be sued for trying to enforce the law, even if they make a good-faith error. No one is perfect, and we all know some dipstick out there will try to make a living off of suing cops or other local officials.

But the issue is that it’s been applied way more broadly than that, such as this.

Local officials tried to remove someone who was armed legally because of a local policy–not even a local ordinance, mind you, just an internal policy–and the judge wants to give them a pass because of qualified immunity. It’s not the worst case of using qualified immunity I’ve ever seen, but it’s damn close.

The problem is that local officials are often shielded from the true ramifications of their actions. Sure, they might lose an election, but they’re not the ones on the hook for whatever internal policy or local ordinance tries to infringe on our rights. In this case, it’s qualified immunity. It’ll also likely come up if you go after city council members who vote for local gun control in spite of preemption laws saying they can’t do that.

And so there’s absolutely no risk for them to try, and nothing but gain. Either the law gets challenged, in which case they can still tell everyone they fought the supposedly uber-powerful gun lobby and potentially move up the anti-gun food chain, or it doesn’t, and it stays on the books despite being illegal. They lose nothing at all, really, especially because these are often officials in anti-gun cities where they won’t lose an election over gun control. 

They know it, too, so what penalties? The city might have to pay out, as will be the case in Ohio going forward, but the people responsible? Nothing.

If qualified immunity shields people in such a blatant case of wrongdoing, you’re never going to shut down attacks on preemption.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.