It seems like every time I look at the news, I see another city, whether in Pennsylvania, Tennessee or somewhere else, having to take a big loss in the courtroom to accept the fact that state firearms preemption laws mean what they say.
The latest was Fargo, North Dakota, where city leaders apparently decided they could make their own gun laws, despite the state preemption law saying the opposite.
According to a report from NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), on December 19, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a lawsuit brought by the city of Fargo against the state legislature to block a bill passed back in 2023 that strengthened the state’s preemption law.
According to NRA-ILA, Fargo has banned gun sales in residential-zoned areas, even by licensed FFLs, for many years. The city filed suit against HB 1340 shortly after the bill passed in 2023, arguing that the law violated their ability for local control.
Of course, the new law did violate their ability for local control. That’s exactly what the legislature had intended for it to do. In the recent ruling, the state Supreme Court found that infringing upon the Second Amendment does not fall under the purview of local control, much to the chagrin of Fargo leaders.
“HB 1340 enhances North Dakota’s firearm preemption law, stating that the Legislature is the sole authority in the state allowed to regulate firearms,” NRA-ILA wrote. “This prevents localities, like Fargo, from creating a confusing patchwork of gun laws in the state and ensures that citizens enjoy the same abilities to exercise their Second Amendment rights across the whole state.”
In its ruling, the court determined that the preemption law is constitutional, leaving Fargo out in the cold with its gun sales ban.
“We conclude H.B. 1340 does not violate article VII of the North Dakota Constitution,” the ruling stated. “We hold the legislature’s enactment of H.B. 1340 constitutes a valid exercise of its constitutional authority to create political subdivisions and, specifically, to define the powers of a home rule city. We conclude H.B. 1340, as enacted, is constitutional as applied to Fargo’s home rule charter and Fargo Municipal Code §§ 20-0403(C)(5)(e) and 20-402(T)(3). Due to this holding, we need not address Fargo’s argument H.B. 1340 and N.D.C.C. §§ 40-05.1-06 and 62.1-01-03, as amended, are facially unconstitutional.”
In the end, the court ruling stated: “The district court did not err in concluding H.B. 1340 preempts and renders void Fargo Municipal Code §§ 20-0403(C)(5)(e) and 20-402(T)(3). We affirm the judgment.”
