ID:Effective Nullification of Federal Confiscation goes to Governor Otter

Gun Watch ^ | 15 March, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

With the campus carry bill that Governor Otter just signed into law taking up all the oxygen in Idaho, few were paying attention to the effective nullification bill that is now going to the Governor's desk.

SB1332  is effective nullification of federal gun confiscation.  It unanimously passed the senate and the house! 

The bill is likely to be signed by Governor Otter.  It effects legislation, executive orders, or other federal actions that take place after it goes into effect, and unlike other attempts at nullification law, it does not prescribe penalties for federal officers, only for state and local officers.  

The bill makes it illegal for state and local officers to order confiscations of firearms required by future federal law.   This type of action has long been established as constitutional, with recent precedents.   The medical marijuana laws are a clear example.

There are several exceptions in the law that account for its unanimous passage.  Court orders from a judge are excepted.   The law explicitly allows for cooperation with federal agents on drug and gang prosecutions.   Still, the principle of state nullification by refusal to cooperate is significant, even if for the relatively narrow circumstances of direct firearms or accessory confiscations, without court orders.

The law would effect a future federal ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines, for example.   State officials would be prohibited from ordering confiscation of such magazines.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The states have the power to direct their officers. The federal government does not. If state officers refuse to assist in enforcing federal laws, the laws have far less "teeth" to them. It is an effective, legal, and Constitutional method of resistance to federal power.

[Free Vulcan]

The bill makes it illegal for state and local officers to order confiscations of firearms required by future federal law. This type of action has long been established as constitutional, with recent precedents. The medical marijuana laws are a clear example.

Very interesting. If medical marijuana has indeed done that, I'd almost support it just to apply the nullification issue to other areas like guns. What a great potential wedge issue for our side.

[BeadCounter]

Sounds like he Otter sign the bill.

[ChildOfThe60s]

This is nice to see, but the court order exclusion is unfortunately a very large loophole because we have seen how the DOJ judge shops liberal judges to get whatever court order they desire. I find it hard to believe that Holder couldn’t get a judge to do that on *any* case he wanted in Idaho.

So the Feds could effectively nullify this bill any time they please.

I would appreciate someone debunking my reasoning here.

[Billthedrill]

The campus carry bill got all the attention. This is the otter one.

[43north]

The article does not make it clear if the court order exemption is only for state courts or if it includes federal courts. Hopefully it only applies to Idaho state courts and we tell the feds to pound sand.

[17th Miss Regt]

The states have the power to direct their officers. The federal government does not.

That is true, but if the President assumes the power of nationalizing those LEOs and does it, they must comply. This is similar to the National Guard. They belong to the governor until nationalized, then they are the Presidents'.

Never heard of this? Neither have I. and there is no basis in law for it. But that does not mean he won't try such a gambit.

And if our worthless Pubs do nothing to stop him when he tries, then boom, they are federalized. It's great to be king! Ask Louis XVI.

[ChildOfThe60s]

if the President assumes the power of nationalizing those LEOs and does it, they must comply. This is similar to the National Guard.

I think that is correct in a strictly legal sense. It is certainly open to discussion as to whether the state agencies and their personnel would comply.

Thanks in large part to Zero's blatant disregard for enforcement of federal laws, the effectiveness of law in general in this country is greatly diminished. More people are coming to the conclusion that if he can selectively enforce or ignore law, then they are not bound to respect his authority.

The rule of law in the US has been ruined. It's hard to predict the longer term consequences of this.

[17th Miss Regt]

I think that is correct in a strictly legal sense.

It is definitely incorrect in the legal sense. It is a made up power with no basis in law whatsoever. He still might try it and get away with it due to the cowardly Pubs. And you are right - the rule of law in the US has been ruined.

[ForYourChildren]

You may interested in this.

This is what I was saying on another thread regarding, “Find a good conservative state to live in, that is your only hope. When the fun begins, hope that your state will be on the side of its people. The feds are not on the peoples side. They are on the governments side.”

[Graewoulf]

PING!

[usconservative]

The medical marijuana laws are a clear example.

Incorrect. The Federal Government and the Department of Justice still view marijuana as an illegal drug and view Colorado as violating Federal Law, the Feds and DOJ are "choosing" however not to enforce the Federal law in Colorado.

The analogy to Colorado's marijuana law is incorrect.

[marktwain]

The point is that the federal government still holds it to be illegal, but they are constrained by what they can do because the state refuses to help them.

[Pearls Before Swine]

The bill makes it illegal for state and local officers to order confiscations of firearms required by future federal law. This type of action has long been established as constitutional, with recent precedents. The medical marijuana laws are a clear example.

Another example is the patchwork of "sanctuary cities" for illegal aliens. Although they are aligned with the present administration if not the law, that may change, leaving local and federal government on opposite sides.