WV Bill SB 96 Would Extend Preemption to Non-Firearm Weapons

AmmoLand ^ | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

West Virginia has a strong preemption statute to ensure the state has reasonably uniform laws about the carry and use of firearms by individuals, throughout the state. It is §8-12-5a:

Limitations upon municipalities' power to restrict the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, transport, sale and storage of certain weapons and ammunition.

§8-12-5a does a pretty good job of limiting the power of local governments to infringe on the right to keep and bear firearms. But the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is not limited to firearms.

As affirmed in the Heller decision, the Second Amendment covers all bearable arms. The Heller decision was re-enforced by the Caetano decision, where the justices on the Supreme Court unanimously held the Second Amendment protects all bearable arms. From Caetano v. Massachusetts:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

As affirmed in the Heller decision, the Second Amendment covers all bearable arms. The Heller decision was re-enforced by the Caetano decision, where the justices on the Supreme Court unanimously held the Second Amendment protects all bearable arms. From Caetano v. Massachusetts:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller,

[marktwain]

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not just firearms.

[1_Of_We]

Not only that, but ‘keep’ and ‘bear’ are two seperate verbs. In other words we need not ‘carry’ all our weapons. Some may be ‘kept’ (somewhere) and not on our person.

[Robert357]

Maybe a few lawsuits should challenge Virginia law on the basis of local and state jurisdictions interfering with interstate commerce, that they are not suppose to regulate.

It might be easier for some liberal judges to rule on that than on the 2nd Amendment.