The Gun Lobby’s Stealth Assault on Small-Town America

Since Newtown, a pro-gun group has bullied local governments into repealing firearms ordinances.

Photo: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=117408565">Greg Henry</a>/Shutterstock; Crosshair: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-138386294/stock-vector-set-of-fifteen-red-cross-hairs-with-bullet-holes-vector.html?src=jPfCvmLbjCeKP-8NCAodEQ-1-2">Ivsanmas</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


This past spring, strangely similar pieces of mail started arriving at the offices of city attorneys in 28 Maryland communities. The tersely worded letters, many dated March 26, warned each town that some of its firearms laws were illegal and needed to be repealed immediately. Takoma Park’s letter claimed that ordinances against carrying unlocked guns and possessing or selling guns in public places “grossly” exceeded state law and should be taken off the books, “out of respect for the rule of law.” All of the letters warned that failure to comply would put the towns “at risk for a lawsuit.”

“Once in a blue moon we get these kinds of letters from activist organizations,” says Ryan Spiegel, vice president of the Montgomery County chapter of the Maryland Municipal League and a member of the Gaithersburg city council. What felt different this time, he says, was the coordination—and the timing: Just a month earlier, the Maryland Senate had passed some of the country’s toughest gun control measures in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

The letters came from the Second Amendment Foundation, a prominent pro-gun legal-defense organization, as part of a quiet but mounting campaign to strike down local gun laws across the country. So far, SAF has sent out about 425 letters to cities, towns, and counties in Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington and has announced plans to target hundreds more local laws.

Though they may be obscure and not always enforced, local gun laws have become low-hanging fruit for anti-gun-control activists since Sandy Hook. The strategy rests on the legal concept of “preemption,” which restricts local lawmakers’ authority to regulate firearms beyond what’s in state law. For more than 30 years, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups have successfully lobbied for preemption laws nationwide: In 1979, 7 states had them, but today, 45 do. Some states, such as Alabama, Idaho, and Maine, make exceptions for local restrictions on when and where people can shoot; some, like California, let localities control where and how guns are sold. All of them, however, set some limits to municipalities’ ability to regulate guns, and that’s where the Second Amendment Foundation comes in.

SAF sent out its first batch of letters in fall 2012, mostly to towns in its home state of Washington. It quickly got results: In Stanwood, the city council repealed two 40-year-old laws—one that prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a permit, and another that gave the mayor additional control over guns in the case of a civil emergency. The city attorney in Prosser concluded that the contested law “could potentially be defended” but recommended changing it “to avoid litigation.” The repeals have been rolling in: In 2013, at least four local governments in Maryland repealed or weakened their gun laws, as did at least four towns in Washington and one in Oregon. And SAF isn’t the only group invoking preemption. In November, residents of Sunnyvale, California, passed a measure that bans magazines with more than 10 bullets and requires gun owners to lock up their weapons. The NRA plans to challenge the measure, which it claims is preempted by state law.

“They were just casting a broad net and trying to get as many folks as they could to remove language related to gun control from the books.”

The prospect of a costly court battle has daunted some communities. “When you’re in a little town, you don’t want to be the test case on things,” says Dan Hultgrenn, the city attorney of Connell, Washington, which repealed a law that prohibited carrying a gun while consuming alcohol.

Not every community has rolled over, though. “We would certainly entertain any request on modifying town code brought in by concerned citizens,” says Russell Winch, a town commissioner in Walkersville, Maryland. “But I’m not going to take any action for somebody on the West Coast that threatens to sue if we don’t do something to suit their needs. If this group doesn’t have the manners to show up before us and explain their position, then it’s not something we’re going to pay mind to.” After the town’s attorney found that the local code complied with Maryland law, Walkersville’s commissioners voted unanimously to disregard SAF’s warning. “I don’t think we even wrote back,” Winch says.

When Garrett Park, Maryland, received its letter, Mayor Peter Benjamin called up Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Michael Bloomberg-backed gun control coalition that he and more than 1,000 mayors belong to. “I said, ‘Look. Most of the small municipalities in Maryland are going to have a hard time should the Second Amendment Foundation try to take any steps against us.'” MAIG agreed to help out if Garrett Park was sued. Benjamin says he hasn’t heard anything further from SAF.

Officials in four other Maryland towns also concluded that SAF is on shaky legal ground, since Maryland’s preemption law lists several exceptions. For instance, SAF called out Walkersville’s entire gun ordinance, which includes a ban on shooting within town limits, even though state law lets towns “regulate the discharge of handguns, rifles, and shotguns.” “Our impression was that whoever read our [town] code did not do a very thorough job,” Winch says. “They were just casting a broad net and trying to get as many folks as they could to remove language related to gun control from the books.” SAF spokesperson Dave Workman disputes that his group is taking a shotgun approach. “If a local ordinance is in conflict with a state statute, there’s not a lot of wiggle room there,” he says.

Both SAF and the NRA argue that navigating a maze of local gun laws is confusing: You can’t expect gun owners to read the municipal code every time they cross a town line. However, it appears that some of the ordinances SAF has targeted have rarely, if ever, been used to prosecute gun owners. So why target them? “In many cases, laws are designed to set a tone and to provide guidance on the expectation of behavior,” Benjamin explains. “During the 17 years since I was first elected mayor, we have never issued a single speeding or parking ticket, yet people seem in general to obey our traffic and parking control laws. Would it make any sense to repeal those laws because we have not prosecuted anyone under them?”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate