[Come and take it.]

I understand that some of the arguments against state nullification go back a long ways to before the civil war. South Carolina took a stand to ignore federal laws on tariffs. Andrew Jackson responded with a show of military strength and threatened to invade South Carolina if they allowed goods without tariffs into the state.

They did however pass the law and fully intended to implement it, if not for the severe reaction by Andrew Jackson. It wasn't a symbolic measure at all.

On the other side we see Washington and Colorado pass Marijuana laws which have basically nullified federal laws. The federal government apparently is going to do nothing to these states or their citizens over this.

Keep in mind that both nullified tariff's (The federal government was allowed to levy taxes under the constitution), and legalizing marijuana are neither guaranteed to a citizen under the bill of rights....

Weapons are guaranteed to the citizen to keep and bear.

Why does the mainstream media consider these gun owners protection laws to be tongue in cheek measures without any real power behind them?

A state does not have the right to protect not only the US bill of rights but their own bill of rights as well?

I would think a nullification law on the grounds of protecting the second amendment by a state would be perfectly constitutional. It is not even in the constitutional authority of the US federal government to take action in this matter is it? especially if the weapons owned or manufactured in that state never leave that state.

Our local paper (Larue County Herald News, article writer - Linda Ireland) claims that the states nullification bill in Kentucky called the gunowners protection act is purely tongue in cheek and has no real power. This is a small town (only 4000 residents maybe) in a generally rural area. It is surprising she has voiced her opinion in such an area.