A lot of communities have leaders who don't care much for preemption. Then again, no would-be tyrant likes having their power restricted, and that's precisely what I think of when someone wants to pass gun control laws in their communities.

Anyone with half a brain understands that a local ordinance isn't a deterrence in any way, shape, or form. A few weeks in jail and a fine isn't going to stop criminals from doing illegal things. After all, take a look at how little federal measures deter criminals.

In Reading, Pennsylvania, lawmakers there are very concerned about so-called ghost guns. They don't like unserialized firearms you can make at home and they want to do something about it.

However, the district attorney is warning them that they should probably hold off on that.

The Berks County District Attorney’s office is concerned about a proposed Reading ordinance to control unregulated guns in the city.

The proposed ordinance would target the unregistered and untraceable homemade weapons, known as ghost guns, which can be built from kits bought online or made with a 3D printer.

“The district attorney's office has some serious concerns with these ordinances,” First Assistant District Attorney Dennis J. Skayhan said.

Skayhan presented some of what the DA's office sees as problems with the proposal on Monday during City Council’s committee of the whole meeting.

“We would prefer if these ordinances were deferred until what I believe is very similar ordinances in other cities, which is being litigated, moves through the appeals process and we have final resolution on those ordinances,” said Skayhan, who attended the meeting virtually.

The state Supreme Court is expected to rule in its next session on a challenge to the Commonwealth Court’s decision this year that upheld a similar Philadelphia ordinance.

"I think you're going to run into what we would call a brewing problem with these ordinances," Skayhan said. "Anytime you restrict someone’s Second Amendment rights, the burden will shift to the government to prove that there is a commensurate restriction going back to the time that the Second Amendment was enacted. That’s problem number one.”

The second issue Skayhan noted was that the law would be inconsistent. For example, if someone was found with a "ghost gun" and a store-bought firearm, they'd be charged over the one firearm and not the other.

Of course, Skayhan didn't really dip into the preemption issue except to note that Philadelphia is dealing with it right now, and I think taking that approach is the right way to approach it. 

Reading officials likely already know that preemption is on the books and that banning so-called ghost guns isn't a listed exception to the law. They simply don't care. 

By invoking the existing court case and warning they should at least consider waiting until the results of that are known, you give them something to chew on. It's a warning that they may not win a legal challenge to such an ordinance, but done in a way that isn't going to give local officials a soapbox to stand on.

Then, of course, we do happen to have the constitutional argument, which is another big one and Skayhan is absolutely correct on that. They're going to have to find some similar restriction from back in the day, and since making your own gun was perfectly legal and done at least semi-regularly, that's going to be a very tall order.

Maybe Reading will get the hint. If not, the acronym FAFO is going to come into play. If they F-around, they'll most definitely find out.