Over the years, I've written a lot of stories about cities trying to skirt state gun laws such as preemption. In my own home state, Savannah has been the most recent example.

Some communities don't like the gun laws on the books and seek to ignore them to put their own in place.

The fact they can't is taken as some kind of terrible affront to all that is good and decent, with preemption opponents arguing that communities know what meets their needs. They should be free to make their own laws.

Well, I'm kind of wondering what those folks would have to say to this.

A City Councilor wants Westminster to let Concealed Carry Weapon Permit holders into city buildings, despite a new state law that prohibits guns at or near Colorado’s town halls.

Councilor David DeMott is proposing the city council pass an ordinance allowing lawful active Concealed Carry Weapon Permit holders, or CCWs to carry their concealed carry weapons on city property. New legislation that goes into effect on July 1, SB24-131, prohibits guns from local government buildings, according to a city staff report to the city council.

“As people who hold a CCW are some of the most law-abiding citizens who both subject themselves to background checks and training to assure their ability to provide personal and public safety,” DeMott states in the staff report. “As Americans, our right protected by the 2^nd Amendment of our United States Constitution must be upheld to continue to protect our nation and personal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

DeMott’s request for a new ordinance was placed on the city council’s June 24 agenda. But before the measure could be debated, DeMott pulled the item. The ordinance will now be considered at the council’s July 22 meeting, Andy Le, city spokesman, said via email.

DeMott argues that state law gives communities leeway to determine how to handle those with CCWs, so it's not quite the same thing as trying to ignore preemption in states that have it, but it still tickles me just the same.

The city's staff, however, seems to think otherwise based on their understanding of the law, which is likely to drive at least some of DeMott's fellow councilors into opposing such a measure.

I honestly can't say one way or another.

What I do think will be hilarious are all the preemption opponents--the people who claim that local governments know their needs better--who will lose their minds over even the possibility of this going through.

See, the truth is that they don't favor local decision-making. What they favor are local communities further restricting guns.

There's a big difference between the two.

After all, a community may well decide that they need fewer restrictions. They're not going to be free to ignore gun control that doesn't meet their needs. They can only make them more strict.

Now, that's kind of how laws work, of course. A lower level of government can't ignore laws they don't like as a general rule.

But preemption simply says, "Hey, in this case, you can't do that."

These folks don't have a problem with states deciding what laws apply, in and of itself. They just want some more gun control and can't fathom the possibility that some local government wouldn't want to play along.