March 17, 2013, 07:16 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Nullification of gun laws
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. |
March 17, 2013, 07:19 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
See my: Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer. In particular, you'll want to read the stuff on the Supremacy Clause.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 17, 2013, 07:55 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
If the states law expands (Bills of Rights) protection to the citizen it is constitutional...
Also if pertains to instructing its law enforcement on what not to enforce, as opposed to what to enforce. It would only be subject to scrutiny if the law had addtional restrictions to federal law right? Freedoms and restrictions as they pertain to the bill of rights. Or am I just misinterpreting what I read? Another way to look at it would be that on basic level the right to keep and bear arms would allow us to own any weapon and bear any weapon. The federal government has put restrictions on this freedom. If a state passes no gun owners protection act than it is subject to this law. However if it passes a law guaranteeing more freedom than that protection act would be perfectly constitutional. Of course there has yet to be a supreme court decision on such a matter. Or would it even be subject to a Supreme court decision? The only clash would of course be if a state refused to allow federal authorities to exercise law in their state that would violate that states protection acts. |
March 17, 2013, 08:37 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
What you wrote looks pretty close, with one exception:
Quote:
For example: Federal law says "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL, you must be 21, a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person." (I've simplified things, but let's take this example.) Example 1: A state passes a law that says "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL in this state, you must be 21, have been a resident of the state for 180 days preceding any handgun purchase; a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person." State has passed a law that has an additional restriction, but there is no conflict with federal law. Example 2: A state passes a law that says "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL, you must be 18, a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person." In this example, we have a conflict. Federal law says that only people 21 or older can purchase handguns from FFLs, but state law would allow it at 18. Result? Federal law trumps state law, and only those 21+ can purchase handguns from FFLs. Yes, states attempting to prevent federal officials from enforcing federal law may find themselves in conflict with the federal gov't. I hope the Federal Constitutional Primer was of some help.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 18, 2013, 06:29 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Than how can a law legalizing marijuana cause the federal government pause in enforcing federal law in Colorado and Washington.
They could but why haven't they? Could we expect the US government to also not enforce federal law in states refusing to recognize future federal gun laws. Are there previous cases where state passed laws with additional protection of rights was considered unconstitutional? According to the primer I read, where in the primer does it mention that expanded protection under one of the Bill of Rights would contradict Federal law which gives more restriction and not more freedom. The part in the primer on Federal law brought up examples of where state laws passed which contained restrictions going beyond federal restrictions. More specifically the Kentucky bill, puts a penalty on its own law enforcement if they aid federal agencies in the execution of any new laws (after January 2013). Wouldn't it be perfectly constitutional for a state to exercise authority over its own law enforcement? |
March 18, 2013, 07:09 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
In a bit of irony, the Arizona state law to ID illegal aliens was challenged by the US Justice Dept arguing that states did not have the authority to enforce federal laws.
|
March 18, 2013, 08:02 AM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
General Disgust
Quote:
Example #3: "In order to buy a handgun from an FFL, you must be 21, a resident of the state in which the FFL does business, and a non-prohibited person, and have a permit from the county Sheriff." Seems like all law abiding citizens have clearly had their 2A rights infringed in this example, since only the Sheriff's Select or criminals can exercise their rights. It is no longer a right, but a licensed privilege. {Real world NC} 200+ years of Emanating Penumbras have generated much general disgust with the machinations of leviathan and its apparatchiks in over complicating otherwise plain language. |
|
March 18, 2013, 12:04 PM | #8 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now imagine the Fed law was thus: "You must buy from a licensed FFL, be at least 21 years of age, a resident of the state in which the FFL is licensed to do business, not a prohibited person, and no other restrictions are permissible." Then the state law in the example would be in conflict, and the Feds could act. Quote:
|
||||
March 18, 2013, 12:11 PM | #9 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In this recent Sandy Hook tragedy, many gun lovers were suckered in by the emotion of the event. I knew people who were initially thinking magazine capacity limits seemed like a reasonable thing. Those same people, with the sober perspective of time and discussion, now realize what a huge mistake magazine capacity restrictions actually are. |
|||
March 18, 2013, 12:29 PM | #10 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course all that means is that if you violate a federal law you'll be arrested by a federal officer rather than a local cop. And in any event you'd be tired in federal court and sent to federal prison.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 18, 2013, 01:52 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
I am interested in what has come of state nullification laws in the past.
Andrew Jackson was ready to go to war over it but was there ever a real solution? South Carolina got tariffs lowered over time in an agreement to repeal its law. Notice this meant that their law was never ruled unconstitutional as it was never challenged in a court. As I said both tariffs and marijuana are not specifically in the 10 bill of rights. Not even slavery. As the declaration of independence clearly said that all men are created equal. Weapons are a protected right. I would like to see if there has ever been a precedant for this where a state had less restriction than the federal government over one of the bill of rights. What exactly would we be looking at if Federal agents were denied to operate in a county with a sheriff who will not comply? Would the issue go before a court or would they simply push the sheriff aside to go in? |
March 18, 2013, 02:22 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 18, 2013, 02:30 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Remember --
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 18, 2013, 02:38 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Last edited by JimDandy; March 18, 2013 at 03:37 PM. |
|
March 18, 2013, 02:54 PM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: September 15, 2012
Posts: 88
|
Nullification of gun laws
The last I checked, we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic.
How can the emotions of many be deemed valid enough to pass legislation? Democracy only comes into play during elections, not when passing laws. |
March 18, 2013, 04:00 PM | #16 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
For smaller issues, there has been the civil rights movement (as mentioned above) and some abortion-related issues, which are ongoing. Firearms-related stuff is a very new field, since it's only been 2+ years since the Second Amendment even applied to the various States. That's still got afterbirth on it in legal terms. It wasn't until recently that there were enough hand-wringing holplophobes in America to overcome this nation's origins as a gun-friendly republic. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by speedrrracer; March 18, 2013 at 04:10 PM. |
|||
March 18, 2013, 06:57 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
|
Quote:
|
|
March 18, 2013, 06:59 PM | #18 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
March 18, 2013, 07:33 PM | #19 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 18, 2013, 07:39 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
What if there were a Supreme Court decision that changed the interpretation to the 2nd as meaning a government run militia?
Than laws were passed to disarm americans as we really had no right to own them in the first place. So we would simply comply and believe what the court says, and hand over our guns? |
March 18, 2013, 07:48 PM | #21 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
What we would do if there were such a SCOTUS and if such-and-such laws were later passed gets further into conjecture than we really need to go. That will be for each of us to decide if and when such time comes.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 18, 2013, 10:38 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Thanks for your time and responses.
|
March 23, 2013, 10:09 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Quote:
|
|
March 24, 2013, 08:46 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2013
Location: closer than you think
Posts: 967
|
When it comes to the second amendment all gun laws that limit access to weapons of any kind(not just guns. Arms) is unconstitutional. The founders chose the word infringed for a reason. The government may not touch out right to have the means to protect ourselves, our families and our country in anyway what so ever. This includes back ground checks, restricting felons( because if the did their time they paid their debt), age restrictions, and when and where we bare them. Our rights are not granted to us by the government( though they'd like to think so) or the bill of rights. The bill of right is simply the recognition of our rights and the promise not to interfere with those rights. Our rights come from whatever god you believe in and the founders said so. Guns are in fact the teeth of our rights. There are two reasons for the second amendment. The first is to protect ourselves against a corrupt government. The second is to protect ourselves and our country against foreign invaders. Hunting would have been there also but they thought feeding your family was obvious. I guess not. Feeding your family is not poaching in my opinion. I'll stop now. Thanks for letting me get that out.
Boomer
__________________
The number one cause of death in the 20th century. 290,000,000 citizens were first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. This number does not include those killed in war. We're from the government, we're here to help |
March 24, 2013, 09:27 PM | #25 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
That is also consistent with the expectations of the Founding Fathers. See the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2: The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|