Constitution Check: Can states exempt themselves from federal gun laws?

Yahoo ^ | August 5, 2014 | Lyle Denniston

[ForYourChildren]

THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:

“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States…to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.”

– Excerpt from a Kansas law, ..S.B 102 and titled the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” enacted ..last year.. Kansas was the latest of several states to pass such laws.

“The far-reaching nullification provisions of the Act are unconstitutional on their face under long-standing, fundamental legal principles. Neither the Kansas legislature, nor any state legislature, is empowered to declare federal law ‘invalid,’ or to criminalize the enforcement of federal law. Any legislation or state action seeking to nullify federal law is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the United States Constitution.”

– Excerpt from a lawsuit filed in federal court in Kansas on July 9, seeking a ruling that would strike down the Kansas law on gun rights.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

From time to time in American constitutional history, a revival of states’ rights sentiment has led to efforts to place state governments between citizens and the federal government, to thwart excessive use of national power. The idea, never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid, is based on the theory that the Constitution was actually a creature of the states, joining together in a compact to give some – but not all – power to a central government. The states, the theory goes, are the ultimate arbiters of how governing power should be distributed and exercised.

{excerpt}

[ForYourChildren]

"The idea, never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid,.."

Wrong!

The MSM continues to play out their agenda. And the low-information voters, useful idiots, and general masses, fall for it.

[Oberon]

I was going to say, this article definitely has a slant to it... and not in the direction of the truth.

[Maceman]

Well, the federal government has exempted itself from the Constitution.

So really, there is no law anymore. There is only control of the guns, which is what the government has to impose its will on us.

Love it how the leftie gun grabbers wrap themselves in the Constitution when it suits them. Usually they just wipe their butts with it.

[Don Corleone]

This whole thing “Fundamentally change America” is coming to a slow boil. It is just what Obama and his Marxists want. (Cloward-Piven) Turmoil will be replaced by a dictatorial government. The answer???

[ForYourChildren]

Peoples comments on the link are pretty good. Surprisingly.

[from occupied ga]

The answer???

Think Afganistan. Probably what the evil turd in the white house wants.

[RIghtwardHo]

It depends. Because of the Supremacy Clause the general answer to the general question is “no”. However, you have to also apply the settled judicial constitutional analysis of whether or not Congress intended gun laws to be the sole purview of the Feds. If not (and probably not in this instance) then the State can legislate but it can’t be in conflict with the Federal law. That typically means the State law can be more restrictive but not less so.

This is just not a simple “yes” or “no” question.

[Hugh the Scot]

Who made who?

[factoryrat]

Under the 10th amendment, the states can tell the feds to go pound sand. But they won't, because the feds have bought and own most every state legislature and governor in the US. Sell your soul to the devil, and expect to get SCREWED!

[rey]

Why not? If the feds or the president can decide not enforce the Health Care Act and immigration law, if local governments can establish safe havens for federally illegal drugs and create safe havens for illegal aliens, why not the ignore various fed laws on fire arms?

[trisham]

"Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes,
they just don't know where to look."

~Ronald Reagan

please click the pic
donate today!
Help support Free Republic

[umgud]

If not, all those states like New York, New Jersey and California should not be allowed to pass laws that differ or exceed federal gun laws. Can’t have it both ways.

[PATRIOT1876]

I certainly hope that the States can ignore nonsensical Federal “laws” that are unconstitutional!

[Mount Athos]

The ability of the federal government to regulate firearms depends completely on the commerce clause.

The federal government got control over a great many things because courts made crazy rulings that pretty much everything is interstate commerce.
It was a loophole they used to trash the constitution.

But if you have a gun that was made in one state, with no parts from outside it, then the state has every right to declare that the feds have no right to regulate the subject at hand...

[pallis]

It seems to me the ruling elites in Washington have replaced the Constitution with themselves, becoming our patron overseers, able to exercise unconstitutional authority whenever they see fit. If Washington no longer yields to the authority of constitutional law, why should states, or for that matter, individuals? When the king is free to break the law, there is no law except what men choose for themselves. States should tell the federal government to go to hell, and do what is necessary to assure the freedoms and security of their citizens. Let the federal courts go to hell also.

[WayneS]

If the justification for the application of the federal law in question is the “interstate commerce clause”, as is the case with many federal laws having to do with consumer products (including guns), then said federal law would not apply to a product which is manufactured in one state, and sold ONLY in the at state.

There is no need for a state to “exempt” itself from such a gun law, because it would not be applicable to a gun which is made in the state, sold only in that state.

No interstate commerce = no federal jurisdiction.

[OneWingedShark]

The ability of the federal government to regulate firearms depends completely on the commerce clause.

But why should the commerce clause be proof against the second amendment when it is part of the unamended Constitution and the amendments [of the Bill of Rights] were enacted in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

The Second Amendment is such an additional restriction, saying A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This restriction should therefore logically restrict the commerce clause (as well as the general taxation clause) so that neither could be applied against arms.

[RIghtwardHo]

The Tenth Amendment is not that simple. It’s not a “the States win when there is a conflict between the two” amendment. It is a “if we didn’t give it to the Feds the States keep it” Amendment. However, with the Supremacy clause, the commerce clause and a whole raft of other “give aways” in the Constitution there just isn’t much remaining fo the States. Over 200 years of SCOTUS decisions including and, in some cases, especially Conservative SCOTUS decisions have made that fundamental.

[WayneS]

The idea, never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid, is based on the theory that the Constitution was actually a creature of the states, joining together in a compact to give some – but not all – power to a central government.

If the supreme court does not agree that "the Constitution [is] a creature of the states, joining together in a compact to give some – but not all – power to a central government, then we need a new supreme court.

PS - I wonder why the author used the past tense to describe the Constitution...

[mosaicwolf]

"The idea, never accepted by the Supreme Court as valid,...."

Who cares what the Supreme Court considers valid anyway. They have no enforcement authority over anybody. All they have is opinions like all of us.