You position likening the state requiring uniform laws between jurisdictions to federal interference in sovereign matter of the state is short sighted, misses the mark, and completely dismisses the sovereignty of the state. Your comparison is completely invalid in that it encourages a hodgepodge of confusing local ordinances that are not only in conflict with each other, but in doing so, makes honest law abiding citizens criminals for inadvertently violating laws that are not only confusing, but more importantly clearly in contravention of State law,which whether you know it or not, takes precedence.
I matters not whether the issue is firearms restrictions, billboard ordinances, or what Tucson has arbitrarily determine what a "livable wage" should be. Just as many individuals move from one locality to another, and frequently visit others, they have a right to expect uniform laws and codes without having to spend time and effort to research all of the differences. This same logic does not apply to separate states, simply because each state is sovereign to itself, and legally has the right to make it's own laws. But those laws should be consistent regardless of where in each state a person may go.
This is especially true with the issue of firearms ordinances. Why should a citizen be able to have the God-given, or natural if you will, right to defend their lives and that of their families in Tucson parks restricted, even prohibited , merely because some individuals of limited mental capacity deem it productive to make helpless victims of them? I can think of no more illogical law than one which tells criminals that they have helpless prey just waiting to be raped, robbed, mugged or even kidnapped at gunpoint (by those who obey no laws) in public parks simply because a few individuals are afraid of guns on an uninformed and emotional basis. Legitimate citizens who enjoy parks secure in the fact that being armed gives them parity with the criminal element are no threat to others who have decided to not avail themselves of this right, and who count on police, who can't be everywhere, to protect them, and are wearing logic blinders. Since they are too cowardly to defend themselves and their families, now they want to be sure that fellow citizens share the same suicidal attitude, under force of law.
The delusional philosophy that an armed individual could or might harm them is no different than women fearing that a man simply because he has a penis could and might rape them, and no less ludicrous and no less insulting than the fear of an armed decent citizen. Statistics from states that have passed "shall issue" concealed weapons permit laws has already given the lie by anti-gun propagandists that "blood will run in the streets over simple traffic incidents", and "gunfights will beak out on every streetcorner, slaughtering thousands of innocent bystanders". The truth, as we now know, is that violent crime has decreased markedly in every single state that has passed such legislation INCLUDING ARIZONA!
Where does this illogical approach that localities should be able to violate the State and Federal Constitutions come from? Is Arizona saddled with local officials who cannot comprehend the meaning of "shall not INFRINGE" (look it up)? Millions of law abiding citizens all over America have NEVER even thought of, much less threatened violence against others, but because a relatively few have used their (mostly stolen) guns to break the law, the simplistic among us actually think that disarming others will make them "safer", even though there is absolutely no basis for their fears, and statistics from the DOJ, certainly no friend of gunowners, has already proven that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually reduces crime, since criminals never know who is armed, and can retaliate and defend themselves. Yet these illogical emotionally fearful individuals mistakenly think that by making themselves defenseless prey, they are safer? How patently absurd!
Further, making criminals of law abiding citizens who unknowingly violate ludicrous restriction increases "safety", and is "reasonable" and "just" is on it's very face an insult to the intelligence and integrity of Arizona citizens, and destroys the very credibility of our system of justice, making it a mockery.
No, the "mini-warlords" who so jealously demand absolute control over their turf are not only unacceptable to society as a whole, but by their acts, demonstrate that only a higher authority can protect their citizenry from their elitist and senseless Draconian edicts and pronouncements. They have already manifested their lust for power and control
The obvious and overlooked, even disdained federal AND state Constitutions proscribes such illegal acts. Accordingly these so-called "laws", "ordinances", "regulations" and "restrictions", being in contravention of both our Federal and State Constitutions, are invalid and of no legal standing. Attempts to enforce them, whether by threat of violence, financial or judicial sanction increase the severity of these illegal acts, and jeopardize the jurisdiction as well as the individuals who play a part in such criminal acts, and threaten court ordered sanctions of them, up to and including incarceration for the first victim who loses their life due to these illegal "laws". Currently, there is an ongoing suit against the City of Tucson involving this very illegality, that could cost Tucson taxpayers a lot of money, even if they win, much less the individuals who participated in such oppressive illegal acts. And that's only ONE suit, sure to be followed by others. If the City loses, which according to the law it will, it would be even MORE expensive. And who bears this costs? You guessed it; the taxpayers.
So, considering all of the FACTS, the State pre-emption bill make sense, for it protects individuals from exposing the Cities to extremely expensive litigation. Knowingly depriving citizens of their civil rights is no small thing.
George Harris