Skip to main content
Report this ad

Cleveland's fight against gun law preemption heats up


  • Robert 5 years ago

    Unfortunately the arguments used to defend the state could also be used to defend the federal government in similar situations. Cases like this can become two edged swords if everyone is not careful. If a city intention is to further clarify a state law that might not be bad but if the intention is to contradict a state law and remove a right then it should be prevented from doing so. To do so would make citizens living in that city second class state citzens when compared to other citzens.

  • wheatbeerdog 5 years ago

    Just why would Cleveland wish to take away a constitutional right? What is their motive? Law enforcement? Think about it!

  • Louis 5 years ago

    I wish the City Of Cleveland would put it to a rest. I think Cleveland has other problems to deal with. How much money did they spend on this. How many cops could be on the street with that money.

  • URU 5 years ago

    Robert, you make an interesting point. In my (beleaguered) understanding, the difference is that different powers are reserved to (for) the states than the Fed. The honest reality is that the original piece of Federal gun legislation is unconstitutional at its very core, as is every subsequent Federal gun law on the books...

Report this ad