![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
WE’LL DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN’T CONSTITUTIONAL AROUND HERE, MR PRESIDENTE
Back around the end of January, I mentioned how America’s sheriffs vowed not to enforce any new gun laws or regs signed by the Obama admin.
A growing number of state legislatures – which just happen to be controlled by Republicans – feel the same way, and are crafting legislation making it illegal for any fed agentto enforce such federal laws on the grounds thatfuck that gawdamn Commie Obama they’re unconstitutional.
Kentucky’s doing it. So is Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Texas and Wyoming, among others.
Well, good luck with that. The laws being proposed are essentially “nullification” laws, which argue that states don’t have to follow federal laws they deem unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees, and has pretty much never upheld any nullification law that’s been passed.
Between that and the fact that even Antonin Scalia has ruled that yr 2A rights aren't 100% unlimited, I don’t see these laws holding up in court.
Ironically, the same could possibly be said of whatever gun-control legislation Congress eventually passes (if any). But why bother waiting to find out years from now when you can pass fear-fueled grandstanding state-level legislation today saying “FUCK YOU, OBAMA, YOU CAN’T HAVE OUR GUNS!”
Which is really what this is all about, I suspect. All of these law proposals sound more like politicians posturing and pandering to the paranoid batshit NRA wing of their respective voter bases. It’s kind of like when Idaho state senator John Goedde proposed a law that would require students to read Atlas Shrugged and be tested on it as a prerequisite for graduation, then after the story went viral and everyone laughed at Idaho, he said he wasn’t serious, he just wanted to make a point.
I have a feeling these anti-fed gun laws are something along the same line.
Then again, some Republicans seem convinced that that they know a hell of a lot more about what is constitutional than that stupid liberal left-wing activist Supreme Court. Like Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), who actually said this:
“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional.”
So this could be fun, is what I’m saying.
You have no power here,
This is dF
A growing number of state legislatures – which just happen to be controlled by Republicans – feel the same way, and are crafting legislation making it illegal for any fed agentto enforce such federal laws on the grounds that
Kentucky’s doing it. So is Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Texas and Wyoming, among others.
Well, good luck with that. The laws being proposed are essentially “nullification” laws, which argue that states don’t have to follow federal laws they deem unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees, and has pretty much never upheld any nullification law that’s been passed.
Between that and the fact that even Antonin Scalia has ruled that yr 2A rights aren't 100% unlimited, I don’t see these laws holding up in court.
Ironically, the same could possibly be said of whatever gun-control legislation Congress eventually passes (if any). But why bother waiting to find out years from now when you can pass fear-fueled grandstanding state-level legislation today saying “FUCK YOU, OBAMA, YOU CAN’T HAVE OUR GUNS!”
Which is really what this is all about, I suspect. All of these law proposals sound more like politicians posturing and pandering to the paranoid batshit NRA wing of their respective voter bases. It’s kind of like when Idaho state senator John Goedde proposed a law that would require students to read Atlas Shrugged and be tested on it as a prerequisite for graduation, then after the story went viral and everyone laughed at Idaho, he said he wasn’t serious, he just wanted to make a point.
I have a feeling these anti-fed gun laws are something along the same line.
Then again, some Republicans seem convinced that that they know a hell of a lot more about what is constitutional than that stupid liberal left-wing activist Supreme Court. Like Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), who actually said this:
“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional.”
So this could be fun, is what I’m saying.
You have no power here,
This is dF