Guns

State Legislators Want to Nullify Federal Gun Control

State legislators across the country are working to weaken the enforcement of federal gun laws by emulating immigration activists.

|

As President Joe Biden takes executive action to strengthen federal gun laws, state legislators across the country are working to weaken their enforcement by emulating immigration activists.

Since 1987, Oregon has prohibited law enforcement agencies from arresting or detaining people whose only crime was entering or living in the U.S. illegally. Hundreds of other jurisdictions have followed suit, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.

"The methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives. "Nullifying unconstitutional federal laws is both legal and the right thing to do."

Sabatini is co-sponsoring a Florida bill that would bar state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any of several listed federal gun controls, including taxes, registrations, bans, and more. State employees who violate that prohibition would be permanently barred from working for Florida's government.

In April, Republican governors in Arizona, West Virginia, and Montana signed similar bills into law, while Arkansas' governor, also a Republican, vetoed a bill. Such measures have passed in the Alabama Senate, the Missouri House, and the South Carolina House as well as legislative committees in Texas, New Hampshire, and Louisiana. Bills also have been introduced in North Carolina, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, Nebraska, and Iowa.

Many states already defy federal law, through both immigration sanctuaries and marijuana legalization. "In terms of the method, it's identical," says Sabatini. Sanctuary cities have "stopped reporting to or dealing with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and that's basically what we're doing."

The legal case does not depend on the constitutionality of the law a state wants to nullify in this way. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that has been upheld in five Supreme Court cases from 1842 to 2018, the federal government can't require state or local officials to participate in the enforcement of federal laws.

"We know this stuff has been working," says Michael Boldin, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center. "The right can continue to complain about the things that the left is successful at, or they can look at it, learn from it, and replicate it."

The right has been wary of embracing nullification, however. In March 2018, when the Trump administration was battling sanctuary cities, soon-to-be National Security Advisor John Bolton challenged the concept in an interview with Breitbart. "The idea that law enforcement at lower levels shouldn't be required to cooperate with the feds is just unthinkable," he said. "That was also proposed by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun before the Civil War, to say that South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery."

Boldin says that argument is ahistorical. The anti-commandeering doctrine originated in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which upheld the Keystone State's right not to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. "The bottom line is nullification (banning participation in federal enforcement) was actually a tool of the anti-slavery, abolitionist North," Boldin says. "And when South Carolina seceded…they issued a document to explain their rationale, specifically [citing] Northern nullification of the federal Fugitive Slave Act."

The most effective opponents of gun nullification bills have been law enforcement groups such as the sheriffs associations in Missouri and Arkansas, which have tried to render them toothless. Boldin thinks police departments want to continue enforcing federal law because it's lucrative, bringing in money from federal grants and civil asset forfeiture. "I don't think they'll admit that they're getting a bunch of loot to do this federal enforcement," he says, "but they certainly are."

The most effective way to oppose federal overreach is at the local level, Boldin argues. "The whole idea of federalism is so important, because it's the only way you can have a country with a few hundred million people with a wide range of social, economic, [and] political viewpoints living together in peace."

Nullification also can flow back upward. Now that 36 states have nullified federal marijuana prohibition by allowing medical or recreational use, Boldin argues, the federal government will soon have to follow suit. "I think we can replicate that on other issues," he says, "and learn that localism is really the way forward for liberty."

NEXT: Brickbat: Every Picture Tells a Story

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Please stop repeating that canard about federal laws prohibiting marijuana. There is no constitutional authority for the war on drugs, and any act of congress purporting to forbid any drug is not a law at all, but a usurpation.

    -jcr

    1. Please stop repeating the fantasy that the US Constitution has any bearing on the actions of the federal government.

      1. The peoples Supreme Law over their government isn’t a fantasy and growing the enforcement of that law is exactly what this nation needs.

        1. Hear, hear! Keep saying it until they start repeating it. We the people are the authority in this country.

          1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can DA do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. It’s not a fantasy, but it’s not magic either. It isn’t worth a shit if most people don’t think it is worth obeying.

        3. Personally, I find state laws to be far more invasive and oppressive than federal law.

          1. …At least until the IRS, DEA, FBI, BLM, USDA, HHS and …..etc, etc, etc, shows up packing their guns and stealing your wealth; or maybe instead they’ll just print fiat so your labor becomes worthless anyways.

            Ever wonder how much wealth you’d obtain if you got but 1-Bitcoin/hr?

      2. People fear progressives packing the Supreme Court for good reason.

      3. Didn’t say it does. Governments at all levels routinely break the law and violate the constitution. The reason I point it out is so that people realize they’re not acting with legal authority.

        -jcr

    2. We should also note that federal laws on gun control are on a precarious footing, too, because of the Second Amendment. I suppose we’re talking about the commerce clause and Wickard v. Filburn at some point, which is the essence of Gonzales v. Raich–and may be the best basis on which the federal government can claim to justify gun control. Immigration is different because setting the rules of naturalization is specifically an enumerated power.

      Because the power to set the rules of naturalization is specifically spelled out for the federal government, claiming that laws that spell out the rules of naturalization are the same as laws that are only justifiable through the auspices of some questionable interpretation of the commerce clause is rather obtuse. California shouldn’t be free to refuse to go to war if the federal government declares one, and shouldn’t be free to make a treaty with a foreign power either.

      1. California making a treaty with a foreign power is covered in Section 10: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation”

        States do not declare war so it really does not matter if California considers themselves to be at war or not.

        Regulating interstate commerce means if Virginia puts a tariff on furniture coming in from North Carolina, Congress can strike it down.

        The Constitution is not very complicated. It’s just that some people like to pretend it is so they can gain money and power.

        1. We call those people lawyers and we used to second guess their opinions. Particularly if they had something to gain from them.

      2. California doesn’t go to war. The federal government does.

        And there’s dual-sovereignty – the states are not obligated and have never been obligated, to enforce federal laws. They just can’t get in the way of the feds enforcing it.

        This has nothing to do with an interpretation of the commerce clause or enumerated powers – the states are sovereign and are not supposed to be sub-units of the federal government.

      3. Anti commandeering doctrine doesn’t depend on constitutionality of the law. Anyway if you’re going to get originalist you should note the Constitution only gives Congress control over naturalization, not immigration, and in fact much immigration law was at the state level in the early decades. Exclusive federal control over immigration policy wasn’t formally established by SCOTUS until the 1870s.

    3. Most state salaries are based on a monthly-compensation rate, by job classification, although some temporary positions are based on hourly rates……………..PART TIME JOB

    4. Observe: men with guns fan out every day to enforce the 16th Usurpation (Manifesto plank 2). Furthermore, the 21st Usurpation only replaced the 18th with a promise to rush in to help Dry States shoot and rob as many people as can be targeted in further efforts to bring back the entire Prohibition Amendment and Volstead Act. This Constitutional principle, spliced onto the Monroe Doctrine, has made the U.S. the mercantilist Monopole using plant prohibitions to rape, rule and wreck the economies of all of Latin America. THAT is what refugees are fleeing hitherward!

  2. . “That was also proposed by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun before the Civil War, to say that South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery.”

    Bolton got this exactly backwards. The south complained about northern states refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Nullification was on the side of freedom, not slavery.

    -jcr

    1. Bolton did that on purpose. Note his default thinking is the government should have the power to force others to do its will.

  3. “That was also proposed by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun before the Civil War, to say that South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery.”

    You know who else proposed the idea of nullification? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the guy who wrote the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were written in 1798 and 1799 over the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Jefferson and Madison argued were unconstitutional abominations and the states had a right to overrule the federal government on the issue. When the guy who wrote the Constitution tells you a certain act is constitutional, you kinda have to take the argument seriously.

    1. Yeah but Jefferson had slaves, so…

      1. While I don’t support slavery, it’s made out to be the master whipping to near death any slave that doesn’t do what he wants, while in reality slaves were considered to be assets that required reasonable living conditions, food, medical care, etc., so they could do their work. Further, many became slaves due to indentured servitude (thus partly responsible for their situation where that servitude is for debt repayment) and it’s hard to argue that military conscripts were not slaves. It’s also reasonable to argue we’re all slaves to government considering they take a portion of everything we produce, just like plantation owners took most of the food their slaves produced.

        I much prefer a government for the people, rather than for the benefit of the political class that we now have.

        1. Sure. Slavery wasn’t so bad, and it was their own fault anyway they were enslaved. Brilliant take there, pal. Are you MTG?

          1. Mute time for you asshat.

          2. Slavery was they way of the world before the start of human history to until about 150 years ago, get over it. It wasn’t ended in Saudia Arabia until 1962. Every cultured owned slaves and every culture was enslaved.

            1. As well, the cultural differences between those capturing & selling slaves and those being enslaved were often not all that wide.

        2. It would indeed be nice to see a wider understanding of how different slavery was from what is commonly portrayed. I expect most Americans would be shocked to learn that Jefferson’s slaves had sufficient free time of their own to go out hunting. The game they shot (note that they were armed!) was for their own table, or was sometimes sold to the master or others for cash money.

          For some slaves, this was not a life spent in literal chains, but a social structure where a group of people were legally property and had no recourse to that arrangement. Still not ok in my book, but very different from the current conception.

          1. And indentured servitude apparently never happened, half of whom didn’t survive to the end of their terms. The indentured servants had very few rights, and those they had were hardly ever enforced.

            And we haven’t even started talking about how and why the colonists in Georgia arrived.

          2. It depended where you were. Virginia’s plantations were mainly tobacco and those slaves were highly valued and treated well. The worst were the sugar and cotton plantations in the Deep South.

    2. The guy on the $20 bill for shooting Redcoats argued that nullification and secession are illegal back when such things were enacted and being escalated in response to protective tariff acts. Jackson may have been wrong, and one of his arguments is specious. But tariff-enabled cartels masqueraded as abolitionists, garnered broad support and got Lincoln to do their killing for them, then proceeded to write the history books. I personally favor all nullification that reduces the initiation of force and oppose that which adds to coercive violence within These Sovereign States–just not to the point of making dumb arguments.

  4. Will those who decry sanctuary cities as a violation of federal supremacy denounce these attempts to circumvent federal power on principle? Doubt it.

    1. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

      1. Yep. I doubt those who applauded sanctuary cities for immigration will support sanctuary cities for guns.

        Partisan politics is all about rights for thee but not for me.

      2. I do find it kinda funny that the left is trying to push for laws at the federal level after they made a case for states not enforcing federal law.

    2. Latin America has been in a Great Depression since the Harrison and Volstead Acts became law. Both policies were exported through intrigue, superstition, pseudoscience and brutality beginning with Herbert Hoover’s 1928 Good Neighbor tour. Economic collapse there followed by the same mechanism through which banning beer and plant extracts wrecked the U.S. economy. Such violent meddling guarantees that for every brain-drain immigrant, there are scores of pathetic illiterate refugees with no clue how exported poverty swallowed their countries.

  5. The nullification crisis that largely precipitated the civil war centered around the tariff of abominations. The feds are ok if you ignore their varoius whims, but if you get in the way of them collecting ‘their’ money they send the army after you.

    1. That is what Jackson made clear and Lincoln made stick. Oddly, Morrill, the politician who wrote the 1861 tariff, made a Quixotic stand against the “progressive” income tax that Populist Party spoiler votes pressured the Dems to enact in 1894. To him, a 10% revenue-only tariff was the abominable “free trade” he abhorred. Yet the high tariff wiped out federal debt during the Jackson Administration–right before British investment fled the U.S. to fight an opium-dumping war on China.

  6. Had to come in to see where Reason was going to fall on this issue. i was genuinely unsure whether they were going to present this as a good thing or that Republicans were still white supremacist terrorists.

    It’s nice to see they can find the middle of the road when it suits their narrative, though.

    1. They still seem to do pretty well on guns and decentralized power.

      1. Only because neither issue swings votes.

        1. Guns doesn’t? Seems to me that more people vote based on that issue than any other single issue.

  7. I don’t think people who profess to want to overthrow the United States should get free access to an unlimited arsenal. Call me nuts.

    1. So disarm ANTIFA?

      1. That’s what I’m hearing. They claim the Constitution, the electoral college, the Senate need to be scrapped, the Supreme Court needs to be overhauled, and the elections require lax security to allow for “fair” infiltration by marginalized groups. They commit acts of terror to persuade government. Sounds like they need to lose their rights in the same way other insurrectionists have in the past.

      2. Just what do you think you’re going to do with the United States when you get your stinking redneck paws on it? You gonna try on a judge’s robe? Powdered wigs perhaps? Shit in the capitol rotunda because you’ve never actually used a real bathroom, and that’s what you think rotundas are for?

        A Democrat is in charge of the US Armed Forces right now, and I have my suspicions that nobody’s going to allow a Republican to have them ever again. Choose your battles wisely. Be sure to consult multiple sources of information so you know your head’s on straight. While you still have it.

        1. Damn that’s a lot of projection. Nobody here wants to hear about your wigs or fecophilia.

        2. “when you get your stinking redneck paws on it”

          Wow. This guy is a prejudiced bigot. I thought lefties were all about tolerance and diversity?

        3. A Democrat is in charge of the US Armed Forces right now

          So get ready for some new wars.

          1. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Yemen, Libya…Democratic wars

            Panama, Iraq 1 and 2 and Afganistan Big Govt GOP wars (Bushes).

            Don’t know but the cost in blood and treasure for America and the civilians of combatants is sure a lot higher for Dem wars. About the only war you can justify for American intervention was WWII and honestly FDR screwed up with Japan big time. WWI was a waste of men and money (and also destroyed Britain as a world power).

        4. A Democrat is in charge of the US Armed Forces right now, and I have my suspicions that nobody’s going to allow a Republican to have them ever again. Choose your battles wisely. Be sure to consult multiple sources of information so you know your head’s on straight. While you still have it.

          You can go fuck yourself.

        5. Aw Tony likes to get angry, but he wouldn’t know a head on straight if it smacked him upside the side.

        6. You’re not answering the question.

          You want people who want to overthrow the government to not be allowed access to arms – so, are you including your Antifa?

    2. Well, good thing nothing is free or unlimited.

      And you’re nuts.

    3. So you want Antifa and all the communist parties to not be allowed arms?

    4. >>overthrow the United States

      lol your categorization machine is faulty.

    5. I absolutely agree. If you can provide proof someone is intending to overthrow the government I will support confiscation of his weapons.

      Or were you actually saying we should just assume people are guilty and deny them their right to bear arms?

  8. Good on those freedom loving states!

  9. “localism is really the way forward for liberty”
    Which is why it will be vehemently opposed.

  10. This is great news and I hope our fellow citizens all continue to demand local government take back their powers from the feds. A return to federalism is what the country needs to keep from ripping itself apart.

    1. I’d be way more ok with federalism if the tax dollars showed it. If we’re going to dissolve more decision making to localities then the tax dollars should stay closer to home as well.

      1. Can’t disagree with you there.

        1. Is there some sort of clock, that when stopped, is correct about every six months?

      2. I’ve always thought it was backwards that state taxes were less than federal taxes.

        1. Social Security alone exceeds any State income tax.

      3. “tax dollars should stay closer to home as well”
        ^^ VERY WELL SAID…

        And to add to it……
        It’s the Actual non-corrupted method of proper Representation.
        Consider how the USA would function if every Nation got a population vote in the U.S. Congress on Legislation that only affected citizens.

    2. On some things, this is true.

      I’m not sure selective enforcement of our First Amendment rights or Second Amendment rights is one of the things.

      Yesterday, we were talking about Nevada’s state preemption law, which makes it so Clark County (Las Vegas) can no longer require people to register their handguns. Sometimes, the more local control, the more liberty; other times not so much.

      1. Yeah, it’s important to remember that local control is a tool, not a fundamental principle. Local politicians can often be the worst kind of petty tyrants.

      2. “The whole idea of federalism is so important, because it’s the only way you can have a country with a few hundred million people with a wide range of social, economic, [and] political viewpoints living together in peace.”

        So Tony/RD can live in New Jersey, and the rest of us can live free, right? That is where I see nullification going, and I think it is a good thing. It is not feasible, nor should it be, that we all live under one collective State. Beyond guaranteed freedoms [not positive rights] as enumerated in the BOR, everything is local.

    3. I agree. Make the feds do their own dirty, immoral, work. Conscripting the states makes them subordinate, and they aren’t per the Constitution. After all, the States are the ones who are supposed to write the criminal laws for the state and to enforce them. That makes federal enforcement redundant and a violation of our freedom from double jeopardy prosecution, whereby they treat you like the political class is treating Trump and all his associates.

      1. The supporters of gun sanctuary cities say that they are not nullifying any federal law, but are instead relying upon the “anti-commandeering” principle of jurisprudence. In a nutshell, it says that the federal government cannot force a state to participate in a federally enacted regulatory scheme. Prinze v. U.S.521 U.S. 898 (1997)–in this court case, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist alongside Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act’s attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. This argument could work in these situations, but the Feds could invoke the Supremacy Clause and Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (mere personal possession of pot falls under interstate commerce and can be banned even if the state passed its legalization). However, there could be some substantiation of Missouri’s ordinance based on U.S. v. Lopez where the Supreme Court ruled Congress usurped the states’ police powers with an attenuated relationship of interstate commerce and the mere possession of a gun near a school zone. The DC v. Heller case (2008) asserting individuals’ right to bear arms unconnected with militia is a move forward but unfortunately the case did not specify whether strict scrutiny would apply (like 1st amendment cases), leaving loopholes for balancing tests that could justify additional gun control laws.

  11. One of the problems with comparing gun control to immigration is that where it’s one thing to say that local law enforcement isn’t required to enforce federal law, it’s violating some of the same principles to say that local taxpayers should be on the hook to pay for illegal immigrants, which are a federal responsibility.

    If Arizona has a million immigrants, and their kids are using the local public schools, and the immigrants are using the local emergency rooms, and there are immigrants in the local state pen, why should the taxpayers in Arizona be forced to pay for that–if immigration is a federal responsibility?

    Even on asylum policy, we are required by ratified treaty to make asylum seekers eligible for all the same social service programs that native born citizens are eligible for, but why shouldn’t the state be reimbursed for the burden on local services by federal taxpayers?

    If the federal government refuses to deport children because of Obama’s executive order, why shouldn’t the federal government reimburse Arizona for the cost of their public schooling, etc.? The state taxpayers of Arizona don’t control immigration policy. They can’t deport immigrants over the objections of federal law. Arizona’s property taxes shouldn’t go to pay for the obligations of the federal government. No taxation without representation.

    1. Repeal the 17th Amendment.

    2. The problem with this, Ken, is that Arizona law requires every child to go to school. It’s Arizona law that is requiring immigrant kids to go to school, not the feds.

      1. The law doesn’t require them to go to PUBLIC school, so the point you thought that you were making fails.

    3. Republican Party exportation of superstitious prohibitionism wrecked Latin American economies just as they caused the Great Depression enforcing beer as a felony narcotic. Federal coercion run amok CAUSED the immigrant refugee problem, and God’s Own Prohibitionists struggle to evade facing the fact.

  12. Legally if a gun is manufactured and sold only with in a State, the Federal Government hasn’t a leg to stand on. Only if they are transported out of the State for sale can the Federal Government get involved.

    1. Interstate commerce means if a guy in Georgia sells ten pounds of peaches to a guy in South Carolina it better be ten pounds and it better be peaches.

      If Virginia puts a tariff on furniture coming in from North Carolina, Congress can strike it down.

      Interstate commerce is not a wildcard for abrogating the rights of the people.

    2. Not likely to stand up in the Supreme Court, given they made a decision decades ago about a guy who refused to obey federal crop limits in 1942. Wickard v. Filburn. Look it up.

      1. Exactly. The Feds get away with all sorts of crap because the courts have sht all over the Constitution over the years.

    3. But what if the CNC machine used to make some of the tooling for producing the firearm contained a bolt that was made of steel that contained iron extracted from ore using a electric mining shovel that used electricity produced by a generating plant which used natural gas which came from a well which had been drilled by a drilling rig which contained a bolt that was made of steel that contained iron extracted from ore using a electric mining shovel that used electricity produced by a generating plant which used natural gas which came from a well which had been drilled by a drilling rig which contained a bolt which was galvanized with zinc which had been mined by a piece of equipment which contained a bolt which was coated with zinc which had been mined in another state?

      That seems like a pretty clear nexus that would empower Congress to pass laws banning said firearm. (Well, at least to a state’s rights hating liberal).

  13. The day is coming soon that New Jersey will defy federal gun laws and affirm their support for the 2nd Amendment as written.

    Nope, couldn’t type that with a straight face. And fuck Phil Murphy.

    1. Live free, or live in New Jersey.

  14. Well that’s just crazy. As we all know, you can only nullify federal laws on immigration.

  15. Gun-Control = A Violation of the Peoples law / Constitutional.
    Immigration Control = A Constitutional Power of the Nation (feds).
    ….. Perhaps because National Immigration is a national matter …..???

    Simple as that.

  16. Nullification is the way to cut federal power. Use it generously.

  17. “The methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left,” says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives. “Nullifying unconstitutional federal laws is both legal and the right thing to do.”

    The anti-commandering principle and nullification are not the same thing. The author, John Osterhoudt, and Reason more generally, should not conflate the two. Nullification claims that a state can actually invalidate federal laws it deems unconstitutional within its borders, not just that it doesn’t have to help enforce them.

    Nullification never got any backing in law. And when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, respectively, on the idea of nullification as protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts, several other states explicitly rejected that idea. Madison himself seemed to back off in the face of such criticisms, authoring a Report of 1800 passed in Virginia clarifying its early resolutions:

    It has been said, that it belongs to the judiciary of the United States, and not the state legislatures, to declare the meaning of the Federal Constitution. … [T]he declarations of [the citizens or the state legislature], whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government … are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue unchanged.

    The Constitution makes it clear that it and federal law are the “supreme law of the land”. History and law all say that federal courts are the only place to go to put into force any claims that federal laws are unconstitutional.

    1. I don’t dispute a thing you are saying, The sort of thing one learns in a law school class. But if a State refuses to enforce a law, how much force does it have?

      Without the cooperation of State enforcement agencies, the feds do not have the resources.

      And is the federal government going to send out troops to do it’s domestic bidding? I don’t think so; a law is only valid if enough people and localities believe they have to follow it, or if the central government has enough resources to force you to.

      1. I don’t dispute a thing you are saying, The sort of thing one learns in a law school class. But if a State refuses to enforce a law, how much force does it have?

        Without the cooperation of State enforcement agencies, the feds do not have the resources.

        Like you said, it depends entirely on the extent to which that federal law is enforced in practice by federal agents or state and local officers. And as others have pointed out, including in this article, state and local police like the federal money they get. The federal government can certainly condition that money on cooperation with enforcing federal law. That isn’t commandeering or a constitutional violation. All of this was covered whenever immigration sanctuary cities were being discussed. There is nothing new here.

    2. The Constitution also says that treaties with foreign nations “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Republican President Nixon signed a treaty making it illegal for the armed forces to destroy incoming nuclear missiles launched by a totalitarian dictatorship–in clear violation of 2A. Most South American poverty and violence is the result of mystical fascist Juntas entering into treaties and “Gentlemen’s Agreements”–pushed by the 1986 Biden-Reagan drug law–to use violence to make production and trade of plant commodities illegal in those countries.

    3. And this was a big mistake as Jefferson pointed out. Judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution. The SC is part of the Fed govt, like having the umpire being employed by one team. We need a constitutional amendment which allows a supermajority of States to override any Federal Law. This will keep the Feds in line with the Constitution and ensures liberty

      1. Judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution.

        That’s right. Without judicial review, there would be no Heller decision baring the federal government from banning handguns in D.C., and no McDonald extending that ruling to the states. Be careful what you wish for.

        The SC is part of the Fed govt, like having the umpire being employed by one team.

        So, what, you’d rather every team be able to hire their own umpires?

        We need a constitutional amendment which allows a supermajority of States to override any Federal Law.

        Uh, if a supermajority of the states don’t like a federal law, they can pass an amendment to bar Congress from making that kind of law. And if Congress won’t send such an amendment to the states for ratification, they can call for a convention to propose amendments. What you just proposed already exists.

        What I think you really want is for that supermajority to be less than the 3/4 required to ratify an amendment, like the filibuster requiring 3/5 of the Senate to vote to end debate and proceed to a final vote on the bill. You probably figure getting 30 states with Republicans in enough control to break down a federal law you don’t like would be doable in some cases where there’s no way to get 38 states to agree.

        Also, what you don’t seem to understand, is that if you really could get a supermajority of “states” to want to end a federal law, then why would it be so difficult to get Congress to repeal it anyway? It is like you don’t get that the same voters that put state legislators in office vote to put people in Congress.

        That is always the thing that bugs me about “states’ rights” anyway. States don’t have rights, people do. And voting for representatives to both their state governments and Congress is one of those rights.

  18. The simple fact pattern relates; States are exercising their authority, which is . . . not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  19. The whole purpose of States having governments is to protect individuals from theft, fraud and violence. If The Kleptocracy comes in the shape of a foreign corporation to increase the violence of law in the several states, it ought to be resisted. This is plainly written in Section 10 of Article I which allows the states to defend themselves if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Defending the Constitution from enemies “foreign or domestic” is, alongside 2A, what nullifies dictatorial ambitions and repealed the 18th Amendment.

  20. State Legislators Enforce Second Amendment Rights
    which the current Federal government is trying to destroy.

  21. It’s a shame the right doesnt try as hard to get their supporters to stop shooting people as they do to keep those same people armed. I support the 2nd amendment. I do not support guns being confiscated, but some regulation is necessary. And once again, Republicans cry wolf and try to blame it on Democrats. So far, no federal laws have been passed for gun control. And it’s unlikely that it will be. But let the right go ahead and feel like they’re really doing something. It’s all for show. It’s also a shame they dont spend as much time fixing our power grid. I guess if we have rolling blackouts, we can just all shoot each other to put us out of our misery. Republicans have some messed up priorities. Smh.

    1. “It’s a shame the right doesnt [sic] try as hard to get their supporters to stop shooting people”

      You need to cite this “fact” or yours [and yes I’m calling bullshit on it]; where I live most of us own guns, but we manage not to shoot one another with them; I believe that is quite typical.

      In other words, if only those persons who do NOT belong to the NRA, SAF, GOA, etc would stop shooting people, the homicide rate would be 0.

Please to post comments