More states passing laws to nullify federal firearms laws

J

jimpeel

New member
It seems that this is a growing trend. Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Arizona, Michigan, and Washington have all introduced or passed laws which will take the teeth out of federal firearms laws. In most of them the state seeks to prevent the laws from being enforced and even provides punishment for those who might make any attempt at enforcement.

SOURCE

Growing Number Of States Eye Bills To Defy Federal Gun Laws
March 16, 2013
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

<MORE>
Click to expand...

In the meantime, more states are passing or have hoisted legislation embracing the growing Firearms Freedom Act. There is a map at the page that shows which states have passed, proposed, or intend to introduce FFA legislation.

SOURCE

The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is sweeping the Nation.
June 3rd, 2010

Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

<MORE>
Click to expand...

While all of this is transpiring, Colorado sheriffs have informed the governor that they will not enforce the unenforceable laws that he is stating he will pass.

SOURCE

Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced

Published March 17, 2013

FoxNews.com

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke won’t enforce new state gun measures expected to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, arguing the proposed firearms restrictions give a "false sense of security."

<MORE>
Click to expand...

Weld County adjoins Boulder County where I live about a mile from my house. Might be worth the move.

Also, El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa recently stated in reference to the bills "I can’t tell you when those were sold, bought and purchased. As far as I’m concerned, they were all pre-July 1 if the governor does sign this bill." I used to live in El Paso County. Might be worth the move.

Terry Maketa was interviewed by Mike Rosen on 850 KOA on March 14. In that interview he stated that the sheriffs have been threatened with their raises being delayed due to their stance on the proposed laws.

AUDIO LINK

Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle has stated that he has no problem with the new laws. He does, however oppose laws on so-called "assault weapons."

SOURCE

Pelle said he thinks a limit on high-capacity magazines is not unconstitutional, but he added it would be a hard law to enforce and he doesn't think it would greatly affect gun safety. Pelle also said he opposes a law that would ban assault weapons, saying it is too difficult and arbitrary to define what constitutes an "assault weapon."
Click to expand...

He is okay with me on one issue and not on the other. He has no problem with CCW either.

We shall all find out how this goes.
 
jimpeel said:
It seems that this is a growing trend. Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Arizona, Michigan, and Washington have all introduced or passed laws which will take the teeth out of federal firearms laws. In most of them the state seeks to prevent the laws from being enforced and even provides punishment for those who might make any attempt at enforcement....
Click to expand...
We've already had a pretty extensive discussion here of the proposed Wyoming law. Such laws, or proposed laws, in other States will raise similar issues.

Bottom line is that such laws are largely symbolic and unlikely to have any real, legal effect.

Remember that the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers also provided in the Constitution (Article III):
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
Click to expand...

And with regard to the reach of the Commerce Clause, see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
 
The FFA is for intrastate commerce while the commerce clause is for interstate commerce.

I know that the states will likely lose any challenge to laws written against federal activities. It mainly shows that the attitudes of the states to be ruled by the feds are changing.

The states with the strongest secessionist movements are Texas, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii. Two of those are landlocked which would be a bad thing for them if they were to attempt secession.

We may see those movements grow. Rick Perry, a couple of years ago, even used the word at one point in reference to it not being off the table.
 
jimpeel said:
The FFA is for intrastate commerce while the commerce clause is for interstate commerce....
Click to expand...
And of course that raises issues of the character of intrastate commerce and the scope and reach of the Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich offers some guidance and certainly suggests that a board application of the Commerce Clause, as well as a narrow characterization of intrastate commerce, will find favor in federal court.

And these questions are in front of the Ninth Circuit now in Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder (No. 10-36094). It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
 
I still have an issue of why things such as nullification and secession ever made it to the courts. Perhaps I am mistaken but if it had than why in each instance such as the tariff crisis and the civil war there is no mention of court action.

Most of the time the executive branch and/or congress took military action or threat thereof to bring them back into line.

Was it ever even decided on by the courts whether or not the states could secede?

Did a court make a determination that the south could not secede before the civil war? In Civil war study I have never come across a decision by the court on the matter of secession before the war, maybe even after.

Of course this is off of memory and I may need to check up on it. So be free to correct me in this matter.

And what about Texas? I thought a long time ago in elementary school I remember reading about where part of Texas agreement to become a state included a clause allowing it to become independant once again if it decided to.
 
Regardless of the 'Legality' of the Sate's actions concerning
the Federal Firearms laws,,,,

IMO it is a banner demonstrating the State's "Populace" Viewpoints..

most of the states (Lead by my own :-( ) have rolled over and played dead from Obama's saber rattling...

I find it interesting that many states are making laws(and standing their ground) to shove it back up Oman's nose...
 
Don't count on TX passing any symbolic laws to defy the Feds. It probably wouldn't get through the state Senate. The House might send forward a bill but that's it.
 
As I have previously posted, these laws are truly only symbolic. State officials, including police officers, have no authority to enforce federal law (unless they also make it a state law). If a state has no law about defacing the serial number of a firearm, a local or state police officer cannot arrest someone for violating the federal law. Hopefully, however, these state laws may have some impact on the national discussion.
 
Is it true that in the judgement from Texas vs White that a conglomeration of states could legally secede? Supposedly the judgement referred to the issue of single state leaving the union by itself.

Still as we can see in Colorado and Washington that although the federal government can still execute sting operations without state assistance, that state down law enforcement are no longer enforcing marijuana laws obviously has had an effect on the liberal and open use of marijuana in those states.

Can we conclude that although the federal government may be able to execute limited operations to enforce federal law we can rest assured that the average gun owner can certianly rest easier.

I mean the federal ATF workload will be mindboggling to enforce federal law in many of these states if state down law enforcement is not reporting, arresting etc etc people they come across who are in violation of federal law. The Feds will have to go out and do it all.

So the nullification laws are certianly not without some teeth.
 
Is it true that in the judgement from Texas vs White that a conglomeration of states could legally secede? Supposedly the judgement referred to the issue of single state leaving the union by itself.
Click to expand...

In plain English, what the Court said was that the manner in which a State entered the Union, is the manner in which it leaves. Prospective States had to have Congressional approval to enter the Union, therefore, a State (or States) must have Congressional approval to leave the Union.
 
Come and take it. said:
...Can we conclude that although the federal government may be able to execute limited operations to enforce federal law we can rest assured that the average gun owner can certianly rest easier.

I mean the federal ATF workload will be mindboggling...

So the nullification laws are certianly not without some teeth....
Click to expand...
That's not a matter of having teeth. That's trusting to luck. One might hope that the feds will be too busy to bother with his transgression, but he can't count on it.
 
I would like to hear everyone's comments on a "quasi-nullification" concept I circulated in a recent thread about registration:

Pass state laws disallowing the expenditure of state or local government funds to maintain or compile "any" firearms registry.

The impetus behind this idea is to undermine a UBC or "Close the Gun Show Loophole" proposal that is actually a Trojan horse for a backdoor registry scheme. If the Feds were to enact such a proposal, the pipeline of data coming from all governmental entities in the state would have to stop, thereby placing the entire financial burden of implementing the system in that state upon the (currently broke) federal government, theoretically including the duplicate collection of mundane data that is readily available to state and/or local governments for other purposes.

It's my understanding that past SCOTUS precedent makes it quite clear that the Feds cannot compel state or local governments to spend money, and that this is far more legally ironclad than laws intended to directly inhibit the enforcement of federal law. It seems to me that this concept would not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause if such state laws are passed prior to the implementation of a federal registry.

Discuss. :)
 
carguychris said:
...Pass state laws disallowing the expenditure of state or local government funds to maintain or compile "any" firearms registry.
...

It's my understanding that past SCOTUS precedent makes it quite clear that the Feds cannot compel state or local governments to spend money, and that this is far more legally ironclad than laws intended to directly inhibit the enforcement of federal law. It seems to me that this concept would not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause if such state laws are passed prior to the implementation of a federal registry...
Click to expand...
And I think you're correct. Certainly there is good precedent for the proposition that the federal government may not compel a State to spend money or resources to administer a federal law.

So if the political environment in a State is such that a state law as you suggest could be enacted, that is a very good way to actually achieve the purpose. And this is a good example of how understanding the reality of things can help find effective ways of furthering particular interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top