More States Standing Up to Federal Tyranny

When government encroaches on the individual’s constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, members of more local governments may tend to be a bit frustrated. How does one combat such statist actions taken by the federal government? You ignore it, that is. According to Gun Wars:

Across the country, a thriving dissatisfaction with the U.S. government is prompting a growing spate of bills in state legislatures aimed at defying federal control over firearms – more than 200 during the last decade, a News21 investigation found.

Particularly in Western and Southern states, where individual liberty intersects with increasing skepticism among gun owners, firearms are a political vehicle in efforts to ensure states’ rights and void U.S. gun laws within their borders. State legislators are attempting to declare that only they have the right to interpret the Second Amendment, a movement that recalls the anti-federal spirit of the Civil War and civil-rights eras.

“I think the president and the majority of Congress, both in the House and Senate, are just completely out of touch with how people feel about Second Amendment rights,” said Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves, who has fought for bills to weaken the federal government’s authority over firearms in his state.

In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010.

A News21 analysis shows 14 such bills were passed by legislators in 11 states, mainly in Western states, along with Kansas, Tennessee and Alaska. Of those, 11 were signed into law, though one was later struck down in court. In Montana, Missouri and Oklahoma, three others were vetoed.

More than three-quarters of U.S. states have proposed nullification laws since 2008. More than half of those bills have come in the last two years after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. All but three have been introduced since President Barack Obama took office.

Underneath the policy jargon lies a culture of firearms woven into the heritage and politics of states whose histories were shaped by guns.

“(The federal government) is diving off into areas unchecked that they’re not supposed to be involved in,” said Montana state Rep. Krayton Kerns, who introduced a bill in 2013 to limit the ability of local police to help enforce federal laws. “Not only is it our right in state legislatures to do this, it’s our obligation to do it. Somebody’s got to put a ‘whoa’ on it.”

Opponents say it’s not federal gun regulation that’s unconstitutional, but laws to nullify it.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit against Kansas on July 9 to stop enforcement of the state’s recently passed Second Amendment Protection Act.

“The law should not be called the Second Amendment Protection Act, it should be called the Gun Violence Preservation Act,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the center’s Legal Action Project.

Two types of bills are the primary vehicles for the movement, both based on model legislation introduced in statehouses from Tallahassee to Juneau.

 

The first type holds that federal laws do not apply to firearms manufactured and sold within a given state, relying on the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. It says Congress can regulate trade between states, but says nothing about trade within states.

Under Utah law, for example, guns made, purchased and used in the state are exempt from federal laws. Commonly known as the Firearms Freedom Act, versions of the law have been debated during 78 legislative sessions across 37 states in the last decade.

The other approach says gun regulation falls outside the scope of the federal government’s power, making it state territory. Such bills, often known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, usually say state officials cannot enforce federal gun laws or limit the ability to do so, and some bills have tried to impose penalties on officers who help federal officials.

“It’s basically saying, ‘Federal government, if you want to enforce federal firearms laws in the state of Arizona, you’re welcome to do it, but we won’t give you any assistance. So in other words, no state police help with (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) raids, no local law enforcement enforcing a federal gun law, none of that,” said Mike Maharrey, national communications director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a for-profit nullification group based in California.

The Kansas law makes it a felony for federal officials to enforce U.S. firearm law.

The Brady Center suit against the Sunflower State indicates that some are beginning to view nullification as a threat.

“This is a matter both of constitutional law and common sense,” said Stuart Plunkett, a Brady Center attorney in that case. “Our system of laws would break down if each of the 50 states could offer its own interpretation of congressional authority over interstate commerce.”

But the bill’s sponsor and co-author, Republican Rep. John Rubin, said he believes it’s the Brady Center that errs in interpretation of government authority regarding intrastate commerce. Rubin, who spent much of his professional career as a government lawyer and in administrative law thinks U.S. government overreach is the problem.

“The founders never envisioned … that a modern federal government would construe the commerce clause so broadly as to enable the federal government to regulate every aspect of the lives of the states,” Rubin said.

While the nullification of tyrannical laws is a great defense of our civil rights, many argue that it’s simply not legal. What do you think? Are the legislators supporting gun rights patriots trying to defend our liberty or are they paranoid rednecks going against the law of the land?

Source: Gun Wars