Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

We analyze panel data examining state-level firearm preemption laws in 50 states. States have long had the capacity and authority to preempt local ordinances. Earlier state preemption efforts targeted gun and smoking regulations in response to local public health advocacy throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Pomeranz et al. 2017; Briffault 2018). Nearly every state preempts local gun regulation, often with overwhelming support of the NRA (Blocher 2013). U.S. cities and progressive localism are vulnerable to state measures that erode the capacity for local decision-making and innovation toward increasing equity and safety. Potential factors associated with an increase in state preemption include, lobbying efforts; single party dominance in the majority of state governments; and social sorting (DuPuis et al. 2018; Riverstone-Newell 2017). Some states preempt localities from regulating, yet fail to enact state-level laws in that policy domain, which creates a policy vacuum (Briffault 2018).

Increased understanding of the scope and scale of preemption nationwide and the penalties and benefits borne by disparate stakeholders is critical, particularly regarding firearm ordinances. Select variables include: Dillon Rule; Home Rule; Republican Party control; lobbying; and punitive preemption: personal liability; fiscal sanctions; and nuclear preemption; and select socio-economic and health factors.

Furthermore, case study analysis further elucidates how progressive localism has sought to challenge state efforts toward thwarting local gun violence prevention measures. We employ text analysis to categorize local government ordinances that regulate an area of law that a state statute has already expressly preempted in order to measure direct limitations to local governance.