The Alabama Legislature Thursday gave final approval to a bill that would attempt to nullify executive presidential orders on guns.
The bill, SB 2, sponsored by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, passed the Alabama House of Representatives 68 to 28 after it amended the bill on the floor. The Senate concurred in the changes on a 23 to 5 vote Thursday afternoon. The legislation goes to Gov. Kay Ivey. …
The bill, likely to run afoul of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, would prohibit officials and employees of state government from enforcing a presidential order that “limits or restricts the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories by law-abiding citizens of the state.”
The House version drops a provision from a Senate bill that would suspend the prohibition if it threatened federal funding. Earlier versions of Allen’s bill far more explicitly attacked the Biden administration. One would have expired after the end of Biden’s current term in office. …
Democrats in both chambers said the bill could not be enforced.
“State law can’t supersede federal law,” said Rep. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove. “So if that is the case, this piece of legislation is not worth the weight of the paper that it is written on.”
– Brian Lyman in Lawmakers Approve Bill to Nullify Presidential Gun Orders; Democrats Say it’s Unenforceable
The same way Leftist run cities ignore immigration and drug laws from the Feds other states can ignore communist disarmament laws. Just do not cooperate with the feds on them. Not enough federal marshalls and agents to accomplish what gun grabbers want to do!
That is it exactly. A state cannot supercede federal law but they can choose their level of involvement. They can choose to NOT pursue enforcement, or to NOT prosecute. Similar to “passive resistance” tactics the left loves so much.
‘A state cannot supercede federal law but they can choose their level of involvement.”
Maybe.
“Choice” is not a simple concept, anymore (for like 50yrs, or more).
Read somewhere that the feds believe they can dragoon (force into involuntary servitude) state officials into federal service. The concept is that the feds need only deputize a state official as a federal employee, and that person must obey any federal regulation demanded.
Then, as the article noted, there is the long settled notion that if a state takes federal money for any purpose, the feds can suspend federal money for any reason.
Lotsa lawyer entertainment ahead.
It won’t work any better for the Feds to “dragoon” helpers than it did for Nazi Germany trying to make foreign workers to produce weapons. Bumbling, Foot Dragging and Sabotage would wreck the system. Database backups corrupted, followed by mass deletion of files could render even the finest registry of firearms utterly useless.
Tickman
So there could be a good side to it !
@Sam,
I may be ignorant on this topic, but isn’t a person being “dragooned” via deputization required to accept (e.g., be sworn in) before such service can be considered effective?
If so, then couldn’t any State official keep a jar of beach sand on his/her desk, and simply present it to any encroaching Federal agent with the statement “go pound sand, and here is some in case you don’t have any”?
⁹If the Federal Government orders states to join the kkk and socialist nazi party should the states comply with such an order? If the Federal Government orders states to enforce Gun Control when history confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is an agenda rooted in racism and genocide should the states comply with such an order?
Deputized by the feds or not there always exists officer discretion. Always has and always will. If the Fed’s fund something for the state then the feds can impose certain requirements for continued funding. It’s never good politics for the feds to pull education funding because the state won’t assist with enforcing federal firearms laws.
“The concept is that the feds need only deputize a state official as a federal employee, and that person must obey any federal regulation demanded.”
Then that state official should no longer be employed by the state.
Talk about comic irony…this bitches name is ” Merica” Coleman ? Must be a shirt-tail relative of our own dacian the dunderhead …the side of the family tree with rotting branches falling off.
“would prohibit officials and employees of state government from enforcing …”
I didn’t read the whole bills, but if this quote is essentially correct, then they’re fine. No mater what the gun-hating Democrat might think, the Feds cannot FORCE state governments to spend their own money to enforce federal law.
Yes, which is why the NICS check is done by the FBI.
The original bill said the states had to do the check and the feds got sued by a bunch of sheriff’s and lost.
When you think about it the original Constitution gave States the right to regulate firearms not the Federal Government but when did the Supreme Court ever follow the Constitution when it threatened their absolute power over the people and over Congress. Answer: Never.
U.S. Constitution equals laughable joke and always has. Corruption and blind greed are the only real power in Capitalvania.
You misspelled California.
‘Scuse me, dacian the stupid,
Cite the exact language in the Constitution that “gave the States the power to regulate firearms”. Be specific. I want the EXACT quote that your stupidity impels you to assert authorizes State control of firearms.
You remain too stupid to insult. Go pound sand in your arse.
Even a busted clock is sort of right twice a day……
The constitution did not GIVE the states such a right. In American law, which is descended through English common law form Old Anglo Saxon common law, we enact laws to regulate and restrict, not to allow.
So the constitution did not give the states any right to regulate firearms, it did not prohibit the states from regulating firearms. It very clearly prohibited the central government from regulating firearms.
The BOR in it’s entirety was not applicable to the states originally. It was only to restrict the central government. That’s why after the War Of Northern Aggression an entire constitutional amendment (14th) was required to make the states subject to the Constitution/BOR. You will not find a statement that “This shit do/don’t apply to the states!” because it was taken for granted. If the BOR had been applicable to the states the 14th Amendment would have been unnecessary.
Recommended reading;
The Federalist Papers
The Anti Federalist Papers
The politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
The politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers.
“So the constitution did not give the states any right to regulate firearms, it did not prohibit the states from regulating firearms. It very clearly prohibited the central government from regulating firearms.”
You provided a good list of readings to gain understanding that the conditions at the founding were very, very different from now, and what has been taught in schools since about 1965.
The Constitution “gave” (“delegated” – meaning revocable) powers from the States to the central committee. Today, it is widely assumed that government “gives” permissions to the states. In simple form, the 9th and 10th amendments make clear the intention of the then States, and the acceptable relationship between the States and the federal government (which seems to make a circular argument out of the 14th Amendment incorporation of the federal constitution onto the states).
quote: “The BOR in it’s entirety was not applicable to the states originally. It was only to restrict the central government.”
Thisis absolutely wrong. Yes, it was directed at the federal government, but please note: there are no terms defining or narrowing the text of any of those first ten articles of ammendment.Futrhte,r EACH and ALL of the States agreed to abide by those Articles when eachstate freely joined the Union.
Shall not be infringed is in a passive voice.. the RIGHT is there, and nothing shall infringe upon that RIGHT from any source.
FEdGOv have few and clearly named rights. None of them provide for any regulation or restriction on arms, or for that matte,r any other personal property. (how about cars, drgs, tobacco, alcohol, what kind of fuel we use and how, etc. NOT ONE of those areas are ssigned to FedGov to “regulate”. The three areas that ARE assigned FedGov they have mangled badly: trade between/amongst the several states, to coin money, and the Post Office.
There is NO provision for the prezzydunce to say one word about firearms under any circimstances.
Thus any EO involving firearms is ull, void, and of none effect. Nor can such an order cooopt any state official to assist in enforcing it.
Pirate,
Read the Constitution AND the Federalist Papers, AND the Anti-Federalist Papers, AND the notes of the debates of the various drafts of the Constitution, AND James Madison’s correspondence about his drafts, AND the various state debates about their Constitutions. ALL of those people believed in “Natural Law” and inherent rights. The RKBA was nearly universally recognized as an “inherent right” of THE PEOPLE.
The Constitution made one thing clear – rights that were expressly recognized as “inherent rights” were untouchable by the Federal government OR the States. Sure, rights not expressly granted to the Federal government were “reserved to the People or the various States” – but “inherent rights” were inviolable by EITHER the Federal government OR the “various States”.
Now, if RKBA is an “inherent right”, the Federal government is PROHIBITED from f***ing with it (as it is, in the 2A), I ask again, “where, EXACTLY, do the states get the right to “regulate” firearms”??? Take your time; I can wait.
Contrast the phrasing “Congress shall make no law…” which clearly limits only the power of the federal government with the phrase “Shall not be infringed” which appears to indicate that each of the states adopting the amendment was agreeing that neither they nor the federal government would “infringe” the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Well said Crimson. The States assumed a Right to Infringe upon the 2nd. A power they were not given nor denied.
The 14th should have ended the argument, unfortunately SCROTUS is too chickenschitt to follow Logic.
If you are to lazy to look it up remain ignorant. I am surprised you made such a fool of yourself even asking.
So, shorter dacian the stupid,
“I have no f***ing idea what I am talking about, and no support for my lame, half-@$$ed argument, so I’ll just punt.”
No, dacian, prove to everyone how “educated” you are – cite me your EXACT authority for the idiot argument you ineptly attempted to make.
Also, as Lysander Spooner observed in the 1800s “Either the Constitution allows the current situation, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
Pirate,
The Constitution is not, and was never INTENDED to be, self-enforcing. If “we, the People” are not willing to enforce the Constitution, and our inherent rights, on our own behalf?? It ain’t the Constitution that is failing, my friend, it’s “we, the People”.
That’s the problem, today – too damn many of us want “someone else” to enforce our rights for us. Good luck with that.
“ U.S. Constitution equals laughable joke and always has. Corruption and blind greed are the only real power in Capitalvania.”
It’s only correct reading like this; “ U.S. Constitution equals laughable joke and always has. Corruption and blind greed are the only real power in Communism and socialism.”
*snicker
This one isn’t up to your regular standards.
Except an executive order is not law, and the AFT does not have the authority to make laws. The AFT knows that their opinions are already stretching the power that they do have very thin, and the courts tend to smack them in the nose for it. They drop cases left and right when they are challenged on the basis of things they consider to be “laws” that are really only opinions.
a presidential executive order only applies to those who are government employees and fall under the executive branch authority and jurisdiction. For example, the judicial and Legislative branch are not subject to a presidential executive order. An executive order does not apply to non-government civilians or states.
The ATF does not have authority to make law but they can enact rules, but the problem with the ATF making rules is they are essentially codified by law so at some point Congress needs to weigh in if the scope of the rule enacting takes it outside existing law.
“so at some point Congress needs to weigh in if the scope of the rule enacting takes it outside existing law.”
Overall, Congress evaded responsibility for creating law, long ago; like as far back as Marbury. Congress is quite happy to pass complex legislation, and let the executive agencies figure out what “the law” is. And the courts have determined that “the law” is whatever the executive agencies interpret it to be (“Chevron”).
And neither the states nor it’s citizens are compelled to comply with an unconstitutional law, decree, rule etc. Example – Shall not be infringed
“And neither the states nor it’s citizens are compelled to comply with an unconstitutional law, decree, rule etc. Example – Shall not be infringed.”
It is neither the states, nor the citizens who determine what is constitutional, and what is not. Constitutional absolutism was destroyed way back when. The relationship between states and the Politburo changed forever in 1868.
And….if “shall not be infringed” actually mattered, all opposition to gun control would effectively prevail at all levels of the system of courts. Truth is that courts do not reason from top down, but from bottom up.
Essentially, “history and tradition” are applied to the process of infringement. It is not judgement of whether a government regulation evades the constitution, but whether the process of evasion was/is followed.
Infringements to every statement in the Constitution are permissible if such infringements serve a “compelling government interest” (which itself presumes the central committee is the fount of political power for the states and citizens).
If a federal law, or Executive Order, is in blatant violation of the Constitution (…shall not be infringed.) then how can it superseded State legislation?
From a technical standpoint a law in place is enforceable until struck down by SCOTUS, true, but either the law or the EO can be and most likely will be immediately challenged in court and any reasonable judge would grant a stay while it is being appealed up the line.
“If a federal law, or Executive Order, is in blatant violation of the Constitution (…shall not be infringed.) then how can it superseded State legislation?”
For all useful purposes, who, exactly, determines if a law violates the Constitution? Hint: not “we the people”.
Jury nullification in court is one way that citizens can effectively enforce the constitutionality of laws that are not in line with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
How does that run afoul of the supremacy clause?
All it would do, is tell the feds they have to do any enforcement by themselves.
I don’t see any constitutional issues with that.
“The bill, likely to run afoul of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, would prohibit officials and employees of state government from enforcing a presidential order that ‘limits or restricts the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories by law-abiding citizens of the state.’ ”
What the author is speaking of is called ‘nullification’.
Not so. States can not be compelled to enforce federal law using officials and employees of state government, and certainly not presidential executive orders.
This has already been settled in other cases with other things, for example…
Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
Can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing federal own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional. The answer is “No,” but radical nullification proponents would disagree. They point to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In a nutshell: (1) State officials can not be by the federal government to enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional; nor may Congress mandate that states enact specific laws. But (2), states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional. And (3), individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional; if convicted, individuals can attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights in court.
correction: “State officials can not be by the federal government to enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional”
should have been …
“State officials can not be required or forced by the federal government to enforce federal laws that the state has determined to be unconstitutional”
How we handle this in MS:
Quote:
” MS Code of 1972
§ 11-65-1. Enforcement of certain federal laws, orders, or rules prohibited.
No federal executive order, agency order, law not enrolled by the United
States Congress and signed by the President of the United States, rule,
regulation or administrative interpretation of a law or statute issued,
enacted or promulgated after July 1, 2016, that violates the United
States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 shall be
enforced or ordered to be enforced by any official, agent or employee of
this state or a political subdivision thereof.”
Thank you, I appreciate this information of which I was unaware before now, I too am a MS resident and am pleased to live in a less tyrannical, more conservative area of our once free country, where we have had constitutional carry for some time now.
I have carried since a cow was required and will continue to do so no matter what the increasingly authoritarian fed government decrees.
Dave
All “sanctuary” states, counties, and cities must stop. This includes immigration and drugs sanctuaries. If blue states can pick and choose, so can red states.
Big difference. The 2A Sanctuary status is to specifically state that they will OBEY the law – the Constitution. The other examples you mention are set up to specifically state that they will IGNORE the law.
“If blue states can pick and choose, so can red states.”
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
“The bill, likely to run afoul of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution…”
Oh, now that is rich since firearm laws that the United States Congress passes also run afoul of the “Supremacy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution. (The Second Amendment, which forbids government from infringing on the right of The People to keep and bear arms, is part of the U.S. Constitution).
Pro tip: the U.S. Constitution clearly states that IT is the Supreme Law of the Land and U.S. Congress is subordinate to it–thus any laws that U.S. Congress passes in violation of the U.S. Constitution are null-and-void.
Disclaimer:
While the information that I provided above is technically accurate, beware that various levels of government often operate beyond their righteous authority (and sometimes are just flat-out corrupt) and may go to great lengths to punish you for failing to obey their every whim.
A friend of mine offered this pearl of wisdom: the law is whatever police and courts say the law is unless you can prove otherwise–which rarely occurs.
Government is lawful by virtue of being what makes the law, and no government is going to outlaw itself.
But law doesn’t determine what is right or wrong, only what is legal.
“Congress is subordinate to it–thus any laws that U.S. Congress passes in violation of the U.S. Constitution are null-and-void.”
The reality (all that matters) is….all law from Congress (signed by the President) is considered to not violate the Constitution, unless, and until, successfully challenged in court. The only way to get around that is some provision of the Constitution that requires all proposed legislation be submitted first to the US Supreme Court, prior either to passing the legislation, or prior to presidential signature ratifying the legislation.
SCOTUS will only hear “flesh and blood” cases, so an unconstitutional law could stay on the books forever if no attempt is ever made to enforce it.
State law can’t supercede federal law except for:
voting
immigration
guns
marriage
drugs
and very soon kiddy diddling
Shire-man,
Sad but true.
The foundation of this situation: the Far Left (e.g. Progressives) declare whether something is right-versus-wrong based on the identity of the actors, recipients, and intended objective.
Here is an example scenario which illustrates the above fact:
A Conservative is holding up a sign in front of City Hall which denounces a Progressive ideal when a Progressive walks up and sucker punches the Conservative. According to Progressives, that is okay (e.g. legal and even praiseworthy) because the actor was a Progressive, the recipient was a Conservative, and the intended objective was silencing a political enemy.
Of course, if the roles were reversed above, Progressives would declare that it was illegal and terrible for the Conservative to sucker punch the Progressive.
The populace would be wise to recognize this fact–then plan and act accordingly.
“State law can’t supercede federal law except for:
voting
immigration
guns
marriage
drugs
and very soon kiddy diddling
But wait, there’s more….”
FIFY
Pretty sure he feels the same way about that other bothersome piece of paper too………the Bill of Rights!
Coleman claims state law cannot supersede Federal Law. But, while that is true, states can and do ignore Federal Law. Marijuana is a prohibited substance by Federal law. How many states have legalized pot now? Several states have chosen to ignore Federal immigration law.
Unless congress starts to wake up and get the bureaucracy under control, they will soon find themselves nothing but an echo chamber and less than needed hindrance to a dictatorship backed up by and controlled by the unelected bureaucrats.
@Tickman
It won’t work any better for the Feds to “dragoon” helpers than it did for Nazi Germany trying to make foreign workers to produce weapons.
Remember, resistance by forced labor did not bring the German war machine to a halt.
In our case, state employees are like federal employees; defiance puts income at risk. Besides, government employees are manifestly more pro-government, than not (COVID should be ample evidence that the vast majority of the public will obey federal authority in the name of public safety). And somewhere in the snarl of state and federal regulations, not only could an employee lose their job, they might be subject to legal action for defying a federal order.
@I Haz A Question
“I may be ignorant on this topic, but isn’t a person being “dragooned” via deputization required to accept (e.g., be sworn in) before such service can be considered effective?”
This would be one of the interesting questions to be resolved. Can a person (regardless of position) be forced into accepting an appointment by state or federal authority?
In today’s environment, I can imagine a prosecutor reasoning that state officials are creating a public safety crisis by refusing to assist in enforcing federal law. That state officials are trying to circumvent legitimate federal efforts to enforce the police powers of the federal government. That if resistance to being deputized is permitted, legal and criminal chaos would ensue from other states adopting similar resistance movements. That the “supremacy clause” permits the federal government, through deputization, to convert a state officer into an officer of the federal government when deemed necessary by the federal government. Indeed, that every state official can be deputized into federal service as a means “…to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
@GRA
“Deputized by the feds or not there always exists officer discretion. Always has and always will.”
Discretion may not be without personal cost to the recalcitrant officer. Of course, state authorities are likely to know who will comply; avoiding potential internal problems.
Withholding federal funds is a serious tool to enforce compliance; so many avenues into state operations.
Yes we’ll go make that speech to Texas LEO agencies when their chiefs, sheriffs, constables tell their personnel NOT to assist federal immigration authorities when they ask for assistance to surround a house or business that a fugitive is hiding in while the immigration authorities work up a warrant to enter hard. Not too damn many of them worried about losing federal funds over those type cases. That threat only carries to the extent the feds will actually go through the motions of withholding the funds. Usually when pressed with a lawsuit they pay anyway. The bottom line is and always has been what the street beat cop decides to do or not.
Don’t even get me started on ATF and the locals. I was in law enforcement when their class act screw up went down in Waco, which could’ve totally been avoided if they had requested assistance from the locals back then, AND the locals decided they could’ve helped them. When you’re a federal agency loved by the lousy likes of Schumer, Feinstein, the murderous Clintons, hermaphrodites from Metro-Dade, and other such SCUM OF THE NATION it’s easy to find reasons NOT to help such turds if you really don’t want to.
“I was in law enforcement when their class act screw up went down in Waco, which could’ve totally been avoided if they had requested assistance from the locals back then, AND the locals decided they could’ve helped them.”
I was stationed in Ft. Worth when Waco went down. On TV, the Sheriff noted that he volunteered to have Koresh come in and talk with the feds (local LEOs had a working relationship with Koresh). The feds wanted to do the armed raid instead.
“Then that state official should no longer be employed by the state.”
Who will take the step to remove said state official? The state government dependent upon federal bribes?
Good point. Everybody knows that ATF wouldn’t get the funding they do if they didn’t cater to corrupt Democrats. They’ve been this way since they split from the IRS.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the Federal government cannot compel service from State and Local law enforcement to enforce or assist in enforcement of federal laws..so they can shove their supremacy clause..
“The Supreme Court has already ruled the Federal government cannot compel service from State and Local law enforcement to enforce or assist in enforcement of federal laws.”
But what are the details of that ruling? Is the SC ruling absolute, or is it predicated on who pays for the assistance? If government confers law enforcement powers on individuals, do those persons have protection under the SC ruling (they are essentially federal officers when deputized)?
Government looks at adverse court rulings as an opportunity to discover the path to getting what it wants; court cases provide good intelligence as to how to avoid an adverse ruling, next time.
incorrect … the challenge came when the feds tried to withold govt money if locals didnt help ice..no local LE is required to work for the feds.. they can only deputize willing agencies.. compulsory service is not legal..Sanctuary cities set a Precident..
“they can only deputize willing agencies.”
Agencies, or individual officers? Is an officer “willing”, if the alternative is loss of job?
Sanctuary cities are of a single type – federal government approved (as in taking no action to end). The 2A “sanctuary” zones are not recognized as legitimate actions of local government.
An important question: if non-leftists are voted out of office, replaced by strict constitutionalists, would the new government end drug and illegal alien sanctuaries?
“If government confers law enforcement powers on individuals, do those persons have protection under the SC ruling (they are essentially federal officers when deputized)?”
Yes, in a sense, but that’s not always enough. The previous racist La Raza Harris County Sheriff pulled his 287g-deputized deputies from that federally funded program before the federal funding ran out. Do you think immigration management let that be known. ANSWER = HELL NO. Why? ANSWER = Because the feds knew the Sheriff could make life miserable for them while they were trying to get their job done in the jail on their own. The deputies were pulled but the feds were allowed to keep most of the same office space. Once the program funding stopped (if it actually ever has since about 2014) the Sheriff dept. could’ve said they needed their space back and DHS-ICE would have to interview and run checks from the Sally port.
@Tionico
“Yes, it was directed at the federal government, but please note: there are no terms defining or narrowing the text of any of those first ten articles of amendment.”
Amendments 9 and 10 are specific limits to the Constitution and the first eight amendments. An amendment which makes incorporation of the federal constitution onto the states is a logical disconnect.
On an academic note, a president can issue an EO/EA declaring the Second Amendment null and void. The determination of whether such EO/EA is valid (within the confines of the Constitution, anchored in the Constitution, authorized by the Constitution, is not up to the states, or individuals. Such an EO/EA would be “law of the land” until overturned by the Supreme Court.
@Sam I Am
“That the “supremacy clause” permits the federal government, through deputization, to convert a state officer into an officer of the federal government when deemed necessary by the federal government.”
The federal government can deputize anyone, but not against their will even if the federal government deems it necessary. Contrary to Hollywood movies and TV shows fantasy, the federal government can not (legally or constitutionally) force or impose or ‘through conscription impose’ “obligate” “deputization” upon anyone. A state officer (e.g. employee high office or not) is free to decline to aid the federal government in the enforcement of federal law, any one not a federal employee is free to decline to aid the federal government in enforcement of federal law. However, they also can not hinder the federal government in enforcement of federal law.
States have a general “police power”, a state can force or conscript or obligate one to be ‘deputized’. But the federal government “police power” can only define and prosecute crimes and enforce federal law only in connection with one of the powers given to it by the Constitution. There is no constitutional power given the federal government that enables them to force or impose or ‘through conscription impose’ or “obligate” “deputization” upon anyone who is not a federal employee unless that person accepts being deputized of their own free will.
“There is no constitutional power given the federal government that enables them to force or impose or ‘through conscription impose’ or “obligate” “deputization” upon anyone who is not a federal employee unless that person accepts being deputized of their own free will.”
All of it a matter of dispute that can only be resolved at court. Meanwhile, such forced deputization remains in place.
I was putting forth argument in defense of such forced service, an actual lawyer could do an even better job. Consider….if the federal government can draft individuals into military service, what is the barrier to drafting individuals into federal service? Drafting into the military is simple legislation supposedly anchored on “raise an army”. What is different about raising para-military?
Did you know that some states have laws that command non-LEOs to assist LEOs (de facto deputies) under certain circumstances?
@Debbie W.
All your questions regarding complying with “the law” are pertinent, but the penalty for non-compliance is not something to dismiss lightly.
COVID is/was a dry-run for gun confiscation. When the federal government can force house arrest on the population, in the name of public health, what are the limits to what government can mandate? Public health and public safety are synonyms for “compelling government interests”. Our First Amendment rights have been permanently curtailed in favor of “Public health”. Both the First and Second Amendments use “shall” in prohibiting government action. How has that worked out?
Can state officials be drafted into federal service? Of course. The question is whether such involuntary servitude will be confirmed, or repudiated by the system of courts. What most people who argue constitutional issues seem to largely overlook is the fact that the federal government can do anything it pleases.
Like all laws, the constitution prevents no infringement. And, like all laws, constitutional infringements are “law” until overturned, or affirmed by the courts. There are very few individual penalties for infringing on protections in the Constitution.
The fact that the federal government can do anything it wants is at the heart of Franklin’s admonition about our form of government being a Republic. It is up to “we the people”, not law enforcement or legislatures, to control our government.
16 posts on hypotheticals.
have a beer.
Here’s a bullet to assassinate your entire article:
You are absolutely correct. State laws are nothing under the Supremacy Clause. EVERY single piece of state legislation that limits the second amendment that came after “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is utterly null and void.
Every last one.
everyone knows the real deal
leftists wont follow any laws they dont agree with
and they are counting on the “good” people
to continue to moan and groan but follow along
only time will tell
The Supreme Court??
the left wont follow the laws
the leftists on the court are re-writing the law
the fed reserve is writing their own laws
the gop continues to work with the leftists
@TomC
“Shall not be infringed” which appears to indicate that each of the states adopting the amendment was agreeing that neither they nor the federal government would “infringe” the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Correct, “appears”, but the conclusion is erroneous. The States were sovereign entities, virtually unconnected with each other. The States were not in convention because they feared State power, but federal power (as clearly identified in the notes and letters of the framers). The States were delegating powers to the federal government, not themselves. The States were limiting the power of the federal government, not State governments. The historical context in which the Constitution was created was nothing like today. Today, the federal government grants limited power to the states (little ‘s’ intentional).
Lamp, and Pirate offer clarifications on the thoughts of the framers, and Pirate’s list of readings are essential to understanding the political environment surrounding the Convention.
Let’s be 100% clear. Laws that violate the Constitution protections of individual rights violate the Supremacy clause. Federal or not.
Laws that are in pursuance of our rights, can not by the very nature of enforcing the Supreme law of the land, violate the supremacy clause.
There is a bunch of treason going on in Washington DC that needs to be brought to justice.
“There is a bunch of treason going on in Washington DC that needs to be brought to justice.”
Where is “the enemy”? When did Congress, or the President, declare declare an “enemy”? Without an indentified “enemy”, there can be no treason.
“Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Words have meaning.
Yes it can, but let’s play anyway and go this way:
Federal law cannot supersede the Constitution. So GFY, leftist turds.
Article VI: “This Constitution….and the laws made in pursuance thereof…shall be the Supreme Law of the Land….”
Says right there that only laws made in pursuance of (meaning in compliance with) the Constitution, have supremacy under the Constitution.
Infringements are unconstitutional. They would be unconstitutional even without the 2A, because there is no enumerated power within the Constitution granting the federal government authority to infringe or to fund infringement programs. And the 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment also apply.
But if we’re being honest, Alabama is NOT a 2A Sanctuary. The bill is a lie. Alabama maintains infringements on the books and Alabama will not prohibit feds from enforcing infringements in the state, nor will they protect gun shops and gun owners from feds enforcing infringements.
“Federal law cannot supersede the Constitution.”
Yes it can, and does, with SC approval. Academically, the case can be made that laws violating the Constitution are null and void. Practically? You could be reduced to making your claim above from a jail cell.
“Practical” is what matters most.