Montana’s gun-rights supporters are ignoring the Constitution in misguided attempts to protect it
In Montana, as The Daily Caller reported Thursday, both state legislative houses repeatedly passed a bill championed by Marbut’s gun lobby that would, with certain narrow exceptions, prevent federal agents from unilaterally arresting anyone living in the state, only to be vetoed by a Democratic governor. In South Carolina, as TheDC wrote in January, several tea party senators cosponsored a bill that would prohibit the federal government from obstructing access to firearms in the state in any way. And, as TheDC reported in January, Wyoming Republicans even introduced a bill calling for any federal agent who tries to enforce gun laws in the state to be sentenced to up to five years in prison and fined thousands of dollars.
These are not throwaway online White House petitions that exist because people are bored on the Internet, or want to make a symbolic point. In each of these cases, legislators have reiterated that they believe these bills — which do not reject specific federal laws, but vast arrays of established government powers — are on firm constitutional ground…
You might be wondering how all these initiatives square with the Supremacy Clause, which states that enforceable statutes passed by the federal government trump all conflicting state laws, with the Supreme Court having the final word on the constitutionality of state laws. What’s the secret constitutional sauce that everyone’s been missing, then — the one that prohibits the federal government from taking enforcement action that bothers state representatives?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What is most ignored is the fact that the 2nd amendment includes the clause “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. The 9th amendment states that just because a right isn’t spelled out in the Constitution doesn’t mean the People don’t have them and the 10th states that any power not enumerated in the Constitution belongs outside the federal government…
wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Shall not be infringed.
sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 5:20 PM
A few things: the 10th Amendment; the fact the executive orders are not laws passed by Congress; and the fact that the federal government may not infringe on the Bill of Rights, Supremacy Clause or not.
ddrintn on February 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM
These laws set up future federal court battles which will decide once and for all the meaning of Shall not be infringed, which clearly is no longer self evident.
Daemonocracy on February 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Kind of missing the obvious, isn’t he?
Count to 10 on February 23, 2013 at 5:31 PM
That assumes the federal government, including SCOTUS, is respecting the letter and spirit of The Constitution. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.
The States and The People have a right to hold them to its word, otherwise the Bill of Rights mean nothing.
Amendment X
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.
RadClown on February 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Enumerated powers is a really, really hard concept for a lot of people, apparently. It’s like the 12′s multiplication tables–nobody learns it because who the hell would ever need to know that?
TexasDan on February 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM
You guys read his scathing article on sanctuary cities, right?
Bwahahahahahahaha… yeah. Right. As if.
ButterflyDragon on February 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM
I suppose that some state governments have decided that if the federal government won’t abide by the Constitution, why should they?
And the march toward a showdown with our would-be tyrannical class continues…
Aitch748 on February 23, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Exactly. This guy apparently believes the Federal Government can do anything it wants as long as nine lawyers in black say it’s OK. Well, they can’t, and they’ve been slowly shredding the Constitution for a while. Supremacy Clause? I’ll show you some supremacy.
RadClown on February 23, 2013 at 6:09 PM
It’s neat to think how the current DOJ will simultaneously argue for the out-of-thin-air Constitutionality of gay marriage and against the written-down Constitutionality of firearms ownership.
rogerb on February 23, 2013 at 6:13 PM
Not at all. I see how they are consistent with the 2nd amendment’s directive “shall not be infringed”. The States are protecting their citizenry against a feral government that is out of control and far overstepping its Constitutional bounds – which is the States’ responsibility to their citizenries.
The feral government is just a different arm of government, as per our Constitution, not some sort of superstate, all-empowered, all-knowing government that lords over everything.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM
There will always be caveats to any constitutional language. “Shall not be infringed” would be interpreted to allow some kind of government regulation, especially in regard to military weapons.
Think of the First Amendment — “Congress shall pass no law . . . .” Of course, despite the “no law” language, the amendment has been interpreted to allow for restrictions on the freedom of speech (even the founding generation did so with the Alien and Sedition act)
It is difficult to imagine how one could establish an absolute ban on government authority vis a vis the people that would not be interpreted by the SCOTUS as allowing for some kind of exception.
Revenant on February 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM
The problem with the political libruls is they have no idea or understanding of how far they can go. These morons, with constitutencies in the big city slums, think that they can force the rest, and most, of the country to live with the libruls in charge as an aristocracy, and the rest of us as their serfs. They have no concept of lines in the sand. What difference does it make (to quote a famous librul female politician) to these thugs in washington and the other big cities how we choose to live, within what we recall are the words of The Constitution. I would think it would be better for this country to keep these federuble agents out of areas where the agents might not return if they go there uninvited versus 200 million people of this country arising and disciplining the 100 million takers in NY, wash, chi, etc. Or maybe these libruls should keep it up and force this country to undergo mitosis.
Old Country Boy on February 23, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Nope, I can read just fine.
FlareCorran on February 23, 2013 at 6:25 PM
When it comes to the Second Amendment, plenary natural rights that supersede the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those words have meaning. The people have a right to ignore governments that infringe these rights.
Tripwhipper on February 23, 2013 at 6:26 PM
It has gone well beyond any reasonable measure and most of us didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. When leftists tell us they want to ban guns we take them at their word.
sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Caveats exist because the people have been willing to go along with then because of the illusion they will provide personal peace (security) and affluence. Sorry but giving up degrees of freedom for illusions only give you loss of freedoms.
chemman on February 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM
Here’s your secret sauce, courtesy the Congressional Research Office:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42398.pdf
Change gun control for marijuana.
danielreyes on February 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM