Arizona Republicans Trying, Again, to Nullify Federal Gun Laws

Categories: I'm Only a Bill
handgun-collection.JPG
By Joshuashearn via Wikimedia Commons


Some Republican lawmakers still are trying to nullify federal gun laws they feel are unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 1294 declares, "All federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations that are in violation of the second amendment of the United States Constitution, that are unauthorized by the Constitution and that violate the Second Amendment's true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers of the United States Constitution are invalid and void in this state."

See also:
-Republican Lawmakers (Plus One Dem) Support Nullification of All EPA Rules

Various Republican lawmakers also are backing legislation supporting nullification of all Environmental Protection Agency rules, as well as an attempt to revoke the National Security Agency's authority in Arizona.

This gun-law-nullification bill is based on model legislation from the Tenth Amendment Center, which, as the name implies, puts a lot of faith in states' rights.

According to the thinking from that organization:
The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is a simple, yet powerful tool to nullify federal gun "laws," rules, regulations, and the like. It can and should be introduced at both the state and local level.

It begins with the basis that the federal government doesn't have authority to make them. From there, it's a straightforward stand-down requirement for the entire state on the enforcement of any federal gun control measures.

Since a vast majority of federal enforcement actions require the leadership, help and/or assistance of state or local governments, agents and resources -- widespread refusal to enforce or participate in enforcement will severely cripple federal efforts.
The legislation, introduced by Senator Kelli Ward, doesn't outline exactly which federal rules and regulations are supposedly out of line with the Second Amendment. It would be debatable whether there would be any real-life changes to how gun laws would be enforced as a result of this legislation.

Two states, Kansas and Alaska, actually have similar versions of this bill signed into law.

Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.


My Voice Nation Help
86 comments
teebonicus
teebonicus

A state's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' liberty and security, using its just sovereign powers pursuant to 10th Amendment guarantees.


The 10th Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Article VI states in relevant part, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."


The Constitution contains affirmative constraints as well as those imposed by its silence. According to the 10th Amendment, if a power isn't specifically delegated to the United States, then the United States doesn't have it. As well, the Bill of Rights contains specific constraints on the powers of the United States, such as "Congress shall make no Law...", "...no warrant shall issue..." and "...shall not be infringed." By the supremacy clause itself, any laws or actions on the part of the United States that violate these constraints, or that exercise powers not specifically delegated to it elsewhere in the Constitution, are facially unconstitutional. As signatories to the contract, the states have a proprietary interest in securing adherence by the other contracting party, and the other party doesn't get to decide what its own powers are - they have already been agreed to in the contract.


It is this proprietary interest that validates state action to protect its citizens from facially unconstitutional federal laws.

robert_graham
robert_graham

The one thing I don't agree with Rupublicans about is on gun control. You don't need an AK-47 to shoot a deer.  If gun control will save at least one person, then it is worth it.

Bruce Salvage
Bruce Salvage

I carry a .45 and i think you're insane with your little EPA/ammo Alex Jones conspiracy crap.

DPSnAZ
DPSnAZ

Interesting safety detail in the photo showing the guns:  The SIG at the bottom left and the Colt? at the top right have their breach closed and the hammer cocked!

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

These clowns should read a recent ruling from Connecticut regarding gun ownership.

A Connecticut judge ruled the state's gun control laws passed after Sandy Hook is in fact constitutional despite gun owners suing the state to stop the law.

Marilyn Ostrow
Marilyn Ostrow

I do believe secession is the next logical step. Would be interesting to see how AZ does without the help of the Federal Govt. I don't think I'll want to be here for that.

DNichols
DNichols

Hey Arizona G.O.P. do we need more guns to shoot the massive increase in Yard Chickens?!

Kirk Dooley
Kirk Dooley

One of these days, they'll pass a secession declaration. And the Feds might just send them a bill for all the land the government owns in AZ, with a note wishing them the best of luck in their new country. And make sure the swinging door doesn't hit them in the fanny on the way out.

Joe Kennedy
Joe Kennedy

If that was directed at me, my guess is you're highly intelligent. Well in the realm of idiocracy.

Joe Kennedy
Joe Kennedy

I guess you haven't looked in the Sky in this city and the surrounding areas lately. The "brown" cloud is turning black and it's all year round now. Without the EPA the cloud would be black all year round instead of only part of the year. The production of ammo has nothing to do with it. The NRA has really warped minds in recent years. And I'm a gun owner so don't go with the liberal crap.

DNichols
DNichols

At least our legislators have dreamed up something for the useless idiots to talk about besides Chickens in every yard?!

We need less Laws, and Far less Law Making Idiots.

To: Liberty

Scott Hecker
Scott Hecker

Those EPA rules were nothing but a ploy to stop/hinder the production of ammunition. We are an open cary state that believes in our constitutional right to bare arms. That isn't going to change.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@teebonicus  as a state with a Nuke plant, id say EPA regulations should be a no brainer. that is of course, unless youd like to wake up glowing one day. Dont say it cant happen either, history proves it can and will. Furthermore, Federal Law trumps state law any way you slice it. We've fought this war before. Lets not regress 200 years because a few natives cant get their hard on unless they are carrying around a military style weapon (IE AR-15, Ak-47, etc). There are no civilian uses for those types of weapons, unless of course you think the deer is going to whip out a 9 and bust a cap lol. 

teebonicus
teebonicus

@robert_graham - As soon as you point to the amendment that deals with the proper dispatch of deer, I'll be willing to listen.


Meantime, I'll point to the one that protects the right of the people to own and use militia weapons.


Aside from that, nice satire!


[smirking in appreciation]

robert_graham
robert_graham

No, it is the illegal aliens, their supporters and the Democrats that is ruining this country.

lostone1413
lostone1413

any idea as to why the DHS would need to buy so much ammo then

verlonp
verlonp

It's called cocked and locked. It's how one carries a chambered 1911 safely.

rlemerysgt
rlemerysgt topcommenter

@MaskedMagician1967  


Really, did the US Supreme Court deem it constitutional, no, so until they do, who cares what a lower court liberal dimwit judge believes!


By the way, shouldnt a consitutional law apply to all, yes.


So explain why Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs US 401, 601, 1971 both affirm the 5th amendment, and confirm the 5th amendment, making 85% of all gun control laws not applicable as a prosecutable charge against ANY of the 10 categories of bad guys as defined in the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act.


What that means is that they cant be prosecuted by a law, that requires them to IDENTIFY THEMSELF, you know, licenses, registrations, background checks.


So how does one reduce violence by the bad guys, with a law that cant be used to punish said bad guys eh?


How is a law that only punishes the law abiding considered constitutional eh einstein?

teebonicus
teebonicus

@MaskedMagician1967 - That's for the present. The lawsuit was filed with the purpose of driving it up the chain to the SCOTUS. It will be upheld by the 2nd Circuit COA because of its political bent. It will be dismantled by the SCOTUS, because there already exists precedent protecting arms in common use that have militia utility.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@MaskedMagician1967  

There's a tremendous difference between what the State may do and what the Federal government may do, and a tremendous difference between what a State judge rules and what SCOTUS rules.

teebonicus
teebonicus

It might interest you to know that Arizona gave that land to the feds in the first place. A "bill" for reclaiming it would be met with the yawn it deserves.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

That's not how secession works, and that's not what Arizona wants.  We just want the feds to abide by the Constitution.  Does that seem unfair to you?


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

You know, when you ask if "that" was directed at you, there's no way for people to tell what "that" is that you're talking about.

Posting via Facebook severely limits your ability to interact in these comment sections.  That, plus the fact that most comments coming via Facebook seem to be completely ignorable is a good argument for signing up for an actual account.


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

Joe, the only aspect of air pollution in the valley that the EPA has shown any concern about is dust.  They also have very little control over the weather, including inversions.


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@DNichols  

Note that this is a law protecting us from laws passed by the idiots in Washington.  We need more of them, until Washington stops passing dumb laws.


DPSnAZ
DPSnAZ

Is your reference to "our constitutional right to bare arms" also a reference to carry openly?

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

State laws never can block federal laws.  The idiots should have learned that when Lincoln was president.


And does your militia conform with the militia act of 1792 or the one from 1903?  THAT is the militia in the 2nd amendment.

teebonicus
teebonicus

@david_saint01 @teebonicus- Except that military-style weapons are protected both by the Second Amendment and precedent:


"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. . . With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." - United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed (1939)


And federal law only trumps state law when it is "made in pursuance [of the Constitution]". Thus saith the Constitution itself.


Laws that are not, are not.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@teebonicus  lol im leaving this one alone..its about time bobbi boi got his own taste of stupid. 

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

Valley, I'm sure the gun owners will appeal the judge's decision and will likely cite Heller v DC.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@lostone1413  LMAO dont tell me you're one of the maroons that would rather see his fellow citizens die, than suck it up and realize you cant always get what you want. 

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative  Who inthe elected AZ government has the slightest clue about what is constitutional?  HoneiBoi?  Arpaio?  Candy Andy Thomas?  Gin soaked Jan?  Mr "China" Kavanaugh?  Russ Pearce?  Your Dog?  I bet your dog knows more than the people I mentioned!

Reggievv
Reggievv

Whose version of the Constitution? Jeff Davis's or Lincoln's?

DNichols
DNichols

@Valley

The Numbers of both Congress, and the Senate were established when America communicated with carrier pigeons, and rode horses.

With todays communication technology we could cut the numbers by atleast 90% and we would be far more efficient, and we would have a hell of a lot less Bi-partison Bickering possibly both the House, and Senate could actually become  functional, and not stalled as they have been for the last Decade?!

Now they just play around on there I-Phones doing NOTHING.

teebonicus
teebonicus

@WhoKnows - The militia isn't guaranteed in the amendment, only the potential to form one is, by guaranteeing the people's individual right to arms.


The first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights guarantee individual rights of the people. The Tenth guarantees states' sovereignty.

verlonp
verlonp

I don't know anyone that learned a thing when Lincoln was POtuS . You must be a little older than me.

As for all that red herring malitia angle "The Right of the People" puts it all back in line.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows  

State laws always trump any unconstitutional federal action, which is the entire point of this.

There is no "militia of the second amendment".  That's merely a preamble to the text, giving an example of why the right to bear arms must not be infringed.

teebonicus
teebonicus

@david_saint01 @teebonicus- It was never granted certiorari, and Roberts and Alito weren't on the Court.

The current SCOTUS has stood the liberal lie on its head. Illinois (Chicago) has been dragged kicking and screaming into constitutional compliance. As more cases of state infringements are brought up the line, I anticipate that the Court will continue on its present path.

New ballgame, David.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@teebonicus @david_saint01  funny, then how did the 94-2004 Ban not violate this Constitutional law you are trying to cite? oops, guess you will have to come up with a new one. Hell even Scalia is on record saying the 2nd doesnt mean you have a right to own an Ak, or bazooka. There are limits. 

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows @valleynative 

That's not the point.  Nobody in any elected position would ever have to decide.  It's left to the courts to interpret relative to this law.

rlemerysgt
rlemerysgt topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay @valleynative  


Funny, those were changed by proper amendments werent they, hmmm, so why are you against making the attempt to lawfully change the 2A, too lazy perhaps, do tell!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@valleynative ... the version that allowed Slavery to continue for 100 years?


... the version that denied Women the right to vote for 150 years?



teebonicus
teebonicus

@DNichols - Sure. In the age of hackers who can empty the accounts of millions of Target shoppers, I'd really have faith in such a system. [eyecross]


What SHOULD be done is a repeal of the 17th Amendment to restore the proper balance of power.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative @WhoKnows  Uh, who said they were unconstitutional?  The same clowns that said SB1070 was constitutional, and that dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago?

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...