May Any Local Government Ban Knives That Are State/Fed Legal?

[bug]

I, bug, say no, local government can't. e_utopia says yes, local government can. The following two posts show the issue e_topia and I have differing opinions on. What do you think guys?


#1 - bug's post:

"e_utopia wrote:

...state law does not list things which are legal; it lists things which are illegal. The local government is free to add to that list, if they so choose.

Your position is far reaching e_utopia. What you are saying is that anyone carrying any knife, is at risk of arrest because any local government may ADD to the list of knives made illegal by the state. You are trying to burden us with learning
the laws of...everywhere.

You are saying that Boston or Worcester CAN, and may have made all 6 inch knives illegal, even though they are legal everywhere else in Massachusetts.

bug wrote:

...local ordinances or bylaws inconsistent with state law are of no effect. It is said that the local law is pre-empted by state law.

Are you sure you don't want to rethink your position e_utopia? IMO your position would result in almost no one carrying aknife for fear of arrest.

bug"


#2 e_utopia's post:
"bug, that is exactly the point - it's stupid, but perfectly legal. For example, in Maine, open carry of firearms is legal without a permit. That is, there is no law prohibiting it. However, in the city of Portland, there is an ordinance prohibiting open carry of firearms.

It is a royal pain, but that is the current legal situation in this country. In some cases a state will pass a law preempting some area for their own control (usually licensing and things like that, but occasionally firearms laws and such), but if
not such law is on the books, then local governments are free to make more restrictive aws.

--JB"

Here is a link to the entire thread:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1317451#post1317451

What do you guys think?

Take care,
bug

 

[shootist16]

Interesting topic.

Here is the way it works. Local government can make ordinances that are more restrictive than state law but cannot make ordinances that are less restrictive.

For example:

State law says it is OK to carry a knife with a 4" blade. A city can make it illegal to carry a knife with a 2" blade but cannot make it legal to carry a knife with a 6" blade.

As the level of jurisdiction gets smaller it can be more restrictive than the level above it, but can't get less restrictive.

 

[DancesWithKnives]

It is my recollection that if federal or state lawmakers state that their statutes are intended to fully occupy an area of law, then the local governments cannot legislate in that area. For example, I assume that federal law governing currency is intended to fully occupy that area of law. Therefore, I assume that state and local governments cannot pass laws specifying what currency is legal tender within their jurisdictions.

In California, a series of disputes developed over whether the state legislature intended to fully occupy the area of California firearms law, so that local communities like West Hollywood could not pass their own (more restrictive) laws. I believe that gun owners lost the last battle on that, but I don't know whether the legal struggle is over.

I don't know what state lawmakers in other states have intended with their state knife laws, but here in California the legislature apparently did not express any intent to fully occupy that area of law. Local jurisdictions are free to pass whatever asinine knife laws they wish, subject to being challenged in the courts if they violate any of our legal rights.

DPD.

 

[cerulean]

Yeah, counties and cities can get away with making local laws that are more restrictive than the state law. It's true that there may be some attempt by the state to preempt local laws in some way, but if it's not explicitly written in the statutes, then it's generally assumed that cities and counties can make their own laws.