A handful of states have considered legislation to make it illegal, a felony in fact, for federal officers within their states' borders to enforce federal gun laws. I don't recall all the states that considered it or the status of most of the proposals. I did comment on someone's Facebook post when I first saw it that I didn't think they could do it legally. I hadn't read the Constitution in a long time, but was pretty sure that states couldn't override federal law.
It looks like Kansas actually passed such a law though. It's no surprise that President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, is siding with Obama's gun control campaign on constitutional grounds instead of challenging the constitutionality of the federal gun laws themselves as an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. It's not really the AG's job to determine constitutionality but it does seem hypocritical when the federal government under the Obama Administration is openly refusing to enforce federal law regarding illegal immigration and has taken Arizona to court to prevent them from enacting and enforcing immigration laws of their own. It's the same President who violated the constitution in making federal appointments while the Senate was still in session without Senate approval. Yes, it's true that Republican senators did the minimum to maintain the Senate's status of being in session precisely to prevent Obama from making appointments without their approval - a tactic that has been used by both major parties.
It's really quite amazing how certain people in power can abuse their power so plainly - and get away with it. When will this madness end?
This is a different issue than the County Sheriffs in many states who are refusing to enforce gun laws they consider unconstitutional. That's about refusing to enforce vs. this issue of making it illegal to enforce.
Here's an article on the subject of Holder's letter. The letter itself came from a different source.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/attorney-general-eric-holder-kansas-gov-sam-brownb/
Here's a different take on the same theme. This doesn't go as far as to make it illegal to enforce federal gun laws, or maybe it's implied in the bill but not mentioned explicitly in the article. How can you enforce as law what is not recognized as law? Who knows?
Alabama politicians quoted in the article recognize this bill would not hold up well to a federal challenge but also describe what they'd really hope to accomplish.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/01/alabama-lawmakers-vote-to-ignore-new-federal-gun-control-laws/
===
May 2, 2013
And this appears to be Kentucky's strongly worded reply to Attorney General Eric Holder from a co-sponsor of the Kansas bill SB 102. This is good reading if you can read the small text in the pic.
And an article that provides some more background about the back and forth exchange between the federal and Kansas state governments. This article also mentions the other states that have passed or are considering similar state laws.
"The Kansas law is modeled on a 2009 Montana law that is being reviewed by a federal appeals court, and Alaska lawmakers approved a similar measure last month. Alabama, Missouri and Oklahoma lawmakers are considering similar legislation."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/03/kansas-governor-attorney-general-holder-spar-over-new-state-gun-law/
===
May 5, 2013
And here's a reported reply to Attorney General Eric Holder. This one is from the Kansas Governor, Sam Brownback. This one is suspect though. Notice that it doesn't show official stationary - no Kansas State Seal. Perhaps it's been re-done for ease of reading or someone had the text but not an image so they're generated their own.
===
May 10, 2013
Missouri joins Kansas in resisting federal gun control legislation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/missouri-lawmakers-pass-bill-that-would-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws/
===
May 13, 2013
Wow, " “Nullification” laws have been introduced in 37 states that technically make it a felony for law enforcement agents to enforce federal restrictions banning firearms". Thirty-seven states! I had no idea it was that widespread. That's 74% of the states. How well does that pill go down for those who think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment? (Yes, they're out there and some admit it openly.)
Here's a really good article worth reading that explains that these statewide efforts are mostly symbolic and again tells us that federal law is the supreme law of the land. But it also challenges the constitutionality of the various laws proposed federally and proposed and passed in some states based upon the recent US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Heller and McDonald decisions of 2008 and 2010.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/13/another-attempt-at-nullification/
===
June 12, 2013
Wisconsin legislators join the growing list of states attempting to push back against federal gun control.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/wis-bill-would-bar-police-from-enforcing-gun-bans/
===
July 5, 2013
As I've said from the beginning, per our Constitution, federal law supersedes state law. As you're probably aware, several states have sought to pass laws that would render federal gun control laws unenforceable, by law, in their states. I think some of those laws have been written more carefully than others and look for ways of defeating the supremacy of federal law. Regardless, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has just vetoed House Bill 436, the Missouri law that would made federal gun control laws unenforceable in the state, citing "the legislation violated a provision in the U.S. Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause gives preference to federal laws over state laws."
Not an "anti-gun" governor, "Nixon touted his signing of House Bill 533, which expands some gun rights, including allowing state workers to keep firearms in their cars while on state property.
Nixon made sure Missouri voters understand he is a friend of firearms, clearly trying to stave off any attacks painting him as an opponent of Second Amendment rights. "The Governor has consistently signed bills expanding the rights of gun owners in Missouri," the statement says, including by lowering the minimum age to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms in the state."
Opposition is planned to override the veto.
While I appreciate the opposition to new as-yet-not-passed federal gun control legislation, I don't think overriding a veto is necessary. Several other states are already in the fight and could serve as the test bed in federal court, if necessary. Just like I'd MUCH rather see gun control advocates drift into silence and leave our rights alone, thereby not spending enormous resources that could be better used elsewhere, I think this state fight could probably fade into something better too.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/05/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-that-would-have-nullified-federal-gun-laws/?on.cnn=1
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/05/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-that-nullified-fed-gun-laws/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/05/gun-law-enforcement-federal-law.html
Firearms Blog Collections
No comments:
Post a Comment