18 U.S.C. § 927 — Effect on State law

This section explains how this chapter relates to state law on the same topic. Congress says this chapter does not automatically take over the whole subject. Passing this chapter does not wipe out state law on the same topic. States can still have their own laws on the subject. State law stays in effect alongside this chapter. There is only one exception. If a state law directly and positively conflicts with a provision of this chapter, that conflict matters. A "direct and positive conflict" means the two laws cannot be reconciled or stand together. In plain terms, it must be impossible to follow both laws at the same time. If both laws can be followed together, there is no conflict, and both apply. Courts should not assume this chapter is meant to shut out all state law on the subject. Instead, this chapter and state law are meant to work side by side wherever that is possible. Only when following both at once is truly impossible does this chapter override the state rule on that specific point.

The source credit indicates that this section was added by Public Law 90-351, title IV, section 902, enacted June 19, 1968, and published at 82 Stat. 234. The credit further shows that the section was amended shortly thereafter by Public Law 90-618, title I, section 102, enacted October 22, 1968, and published at 82 Stat. 1226. Beyond these two legislative actions, the record reflects no further amendment activity for this section. Public Law 90-351 is generally known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, a broad federal statute enacted amid national concern in the mid-1960s over rising crime rates and civil unrest. Public Law 90-618, enacted later the same year, is commonly identified as the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is generally understood to have restructured and expanded federal firearms regulation, including provisions addressing the relationship between federal firearms law and state law. The specific placement of a "no preemption absent direct conflict" clause within this chapter is consistent with a broader legislative approach, common in federal regulatory statutes of this era, of preserving state authority alongside new federal schemes. However, the record does not establish the particular reasoning of Congress for including this section, and no committee reports, floor statements, or other legislative history are before us here. Readers seeking the precise rationale should consult the legislative history directly rather than infer intent beyond what the source credit documents.