Blocking Federal Gun Control

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    Nullification isn't real.

    Yup. Beat me to it.
    The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution precludes states nullifying Federal Law. While there were numerous cases before it, the Nullification Crisis with South Carolina in 1832 brought matters to a head. South Carolina's legislature declared the Federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional (under the US Constitution), and were therefore null and void within South Carolina's sovereign state borders, effective February 1833. The state began military preparations to resist any federal enforcement efforts. In March 1833, Congress passed the Force Bill allowing the POTUS to use the military to enforce the tariffs. Another bill was passed at the same time modified the tariffs in a manner acceptable to South Carolina. The state repealed its tariff nullification, but in an act of continued defiance declared the Force Bill unconstitutional, and therefore null and void in South Carolina. The tariff compromise ended the standoff, but South Carolina was on the verge of seceding from the Union over tariffs nearly three decades before they did secede.

    All nullification cases finding their way to the Federal courts and SCOTUS have had state nullification resolutions and laws struck down and reversed. While Federal law cannot compel a state to use its law enforcement resources to enforce Federal law, the state cannot impede Federal law enforcement from enforcing Federal law within a state's borders. There are several SCOTUS cases, some relatively recent, that reinforce this. States that have legalized marijuana are one example of this.

    Missouri's legislature can pass what legislation it chooses to, but the bottom line is Missouri's government (governor, legislature or courts) cannot prevent Federal law from being enforced in Missouri by Federal law enforcement. Missouri can only choose not to assist or aid the Federal Government. Missouri's act may make a statement about their view on matters of Federal gun control, but it's unenforceable. Their sole remedy is pursuing the constitutionality of Federal Law they believe unconstitutional in the Federal Courts and they must abide by Federal Court (with jurisdiction) decisions, judgments and orders.

    John
     
    Last edited:

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Similar bills, with criminal penalties for federal law enforcement officers enforcing "unconstitutional" laws, have been filed in the Indiana legislature before. However, they never got a hearing, as they were quickly identified as being unconstitutional and unenforceable, let alone bad policy. As best I recall, that was in the 2012-2013-2014 session(s).

    Also, I seem to recall a couple of young men being prosecuted federally for manufacturing firearms under the terms of a Kansas law purporting to exempt them from federal laws, if the firearm was manufactured within and were kept solely within the state of Kansas:

    https://www.cjonline.com/news/state...ral-firearms-regulations-trump-kansas-gun-law
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Extremists on each side want to nullify parts of the Constitution.

    Which portion they want to nullify depends on which extreme they're on.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    ...... legalized marijuana
    A state may "legalize" marijuana within its borders with regard to state law. It does not change Federal law. If ATF, the FBI or any of the other federal three letter law enforcement agencies choose to enforce Federal drug laws that prohibit the growing, possession, transport and sale of marijuana, they can enforce Federal law and the state cannot prevent it.

    John
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,614
    149
    Valparaiso
    ...... legalized marijuana

    Um....no.

    Anyhoo, every time this "state nullifies gun laws" issue comes up....I feel like the Dad who has to tell his kids that their goldfish/gerbil/cat/grandparent isn't just sleeping....

    I don't want to tell them the truth, but I have to.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Um....no.

    Anyhoo, every time this "state nullifies gun laws" issue comes up....I feel like the Dad who has to tell his kids that their goldfish/gerbil/cat/grandparent isn't just sleeping....

    I don't want to tell them the truth, but I have to.

    But, Daaaaaad! :):
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,415
    149
    Napganistan
    What the heck is that BS? States cannot nullify Federal Law. This legislature wasted time and tax money to pass something that is impossible. They can choose to ignore Federal Law, much like some municipalities have chosen to do with Marijuana or immigration, but the Feds can still choose to enforce them regardless of what the States say.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Looking through the General Assembly archives, I found one example, filed in 2013:

    Senate Bill 230 (Delph, M):

    Digest:

    Provides that any federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute found by the general assembly to be inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is void in Indiana. Provides that a resident of Indiana has a cause of action to enjoin the enforcement or implementation or the attempted enforcement or implementation of a federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute declared void by the general assembly. Provides that a plaintiff who prevails in such an action is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally implements or enforces, or attempts to implement or enforce, a federal law that is declared void by the general assembly commits a Class D felony. Finds that the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States.

    This was assigned to the Senate Rules Committee, where it did not get a hearing (i.e. died in committee).
     
    Top Bottom