Georgia Judge Nixes Savannah’s Attempt to Ignore Preemption Law

Last April, the Savannah, Georgia City Council adopted an ordinance requiring gun owners who leave their firearms in vehicles to lock their doors and ensure the gun isn’t visible. 

That may be good advice, but it’s a bad law… especially since Georgia’s firearm preemption statute prohibits localities like Savannah from adopting thier own gun regulations. 

Now a judge in Georgia has declared the law null and void, after a man named Clayton Papp challenged the citation he received from the Savannah police for violating the ordinance last December. 

Savannah officials had argued that the state’s preemption law doesn’t prohibit political subdivisions from regulating the “storage” of firearms, but Papp and his attorneys declared that “possession” of a firearm, which is explicitly mentioned in the preemption statute, encompasses storage. In his order, Judge Joe Huffman agreed with Papp. 

By its explicit terms, the Ordinance governs “possession” and “storage” of firearms in unoccupied vehicles. Georgia’s preemption statute does not distinguish between “storage” and “possession.” Rather, [the statute] forbids municipalities from regulating “possession, transport, carrying…”, all of which necessarily include temporary storage of firearms within vehicles. The City repeatedly insists the Ordinance regulates “storage” rather than “possession” or “transport.” 

That distinction is illusory.

Even if Georgia didn’t have a preemption law, Huffman would have struck down the ordinance on Second Amendment grounds. As he noted in his ruling, Savannah failed to come up with any remotely similar historical analogues. The closest they could cite was a 1783 ordinance in Boston prohibiting the storage of loose gunpowder, but as Huffman notes, the “why” of that ordinance is far different than the rationale for Savannah’s. Boston’s was meant as a fire-prevention regulation, while Savannah’s ordinance is ostensibly mean to crack down on the theft of firearms from vehicles; not by targeting the thieves themselves, but the victims of these crimes. 

Savannah Mayor Van Johnson and the city council could decide to appeal Huffman’s ruling, but I don’t think they stand much chance of success. The judge’s reasoning is based on a simple reading of the preemption statute and the plain meaning of words like “possess” and “transport.” Would it be nice if the Georgia legislature explicitly includes the word “storage” in the preemption statute? Sure. Is it necessary? Not at all. 

Second Amendment groups warned city officials that this outcome was bound to happen if they adopted an ordinance so contrary to state law, but Johnson and his allies on the city council wanted to grandstand in support of gun control rather than respect the rule of law. Again, it’s wise to keep your car locked if there’s a gun inside, and it’s a bad idea to leave that gun visible to anyone peeping through the window. Still, if someone breaks into your car to steal your gun, the blame lies with the criminal, not the lawful gun owner. The victim of a car burglary wasn’t asking for it anymore than someone who is sexually assaulted was asking for it based on their attire. 

My hope is that city officials will decide to crack down on thieves and drop their war on gun owners, but if Johnson decides he can gain political capital by continuing to fight for the unlawful ordinance this could drag out for some time. I doubt, however, that the courts are going to let Savannah continue to enforce the ordinance while the litigation plays out. For now, the ordinance is not in effect, and I expect that to remain the case going forward. 

Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.

Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.