18 U.S.C. § 927
Effect on State law
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “This is evident from the categorical preemption of state and local law standing in the way of the LEOSA right to carry, see 18 U.S.C. § 927 , and the nature of the ministerial inquiries into the historical facts in the officer’s employment records and statutory powers of arrest,…”
City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2004). “(West 2002) (Firearm Owners Identification Card Act). Indeed, the second amended complaint acknowledges that the "State of Illinois is a high regulation state.”
Gazzola v. Hochul, 88 F.4th 186 (2d Cir. 2023). “But they ignore that Congress, in 18 U.S.C. § 927 , expressly disclaimed field preemption: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any…”
Torraco v. Port Auth. of Ny. & Nj., 615 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010). “18 U.S.C. § 927 . As both the district court and this court conclude that the second Blessing factor prevents the plaintiffs from showing the existence of an individual right, we need not discuss the third factor.”
Torraco v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 615 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010). “18 U.S.C. § 927 . As both the district court and this court conclude that the second Blessing factor prevents the plaintiffs from showing the existence of an individual right, we need not discuss the third factor.”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “" 18 U.S.C. § 927 . 15 . Negligent design and failure to warn are typically asserted as product liability actions.”
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 256 (E.D.N.Y 2004). “, 18 U.S.C. § 927 (“No provision of this chapter [Chapter 44 — Firearms] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is…”
Kole v. Vill. of Norridge, 941 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “18 U.S.C. § 927 . Similarly, as Defendants note, ATF regulations confirm that: A [federal firearms] license issued under this part confers no right or privilege to conduct business or activity contrary to State or other law.”
City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 296 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “, 18 U.S.C. § 927 (“No provision of this chapter [Chapter 44-Fire-arms] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is…”
Commonwealth v. Harris, 119 N.E.3d 1158 (Mass. 2019). “…As the judge properly denied the request for an instruction on 18 U.S.C. § 926A, we need not reach this issue. See 18 U.S.C. § 927 .”
McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744 (D.C. 1978). “1213 , 18 U.S.C. § 927 , Congress provided: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there…”
Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. John K. Van De Kamp, Esq., in His Off. Capacity as Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992). “See 18 U.S.C. § 927 ; cf. H.R.Rep. No. 1577, 90th Cong.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.