From The Hill newspaper:
As of this week, at least 28 states had taken up consideration of gun bills this year, according to new data compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. More than 70 bills have been put forward in all.
The burst of activity comes as the Obama administration and Congress pursue a series of gun control measures in the wake of December’s shooting massacre in Connecticut, which left 20 schoolchildren and six adults dead.
In addition to dozens of bills pending in the House and Senate, the Justice Department and other agencies are moving ahead 23 executive actions announced by President Obama in January.
The state bills vary in content and scope, but most are meant to nullify federal regulations that place new restrictions on gun rights, or other measures viewed as encroaching on the Second Amendment. . . . .
Utah’s . . . was designed to assert the state’s rights to enforce its own gun laws . . . .Montana, a similar bill prohibiting state or local police from enforcing a federal assault weapons ban . . . .
There was an error in the piece.
UCLA law Professor Adam Winkler, an expert in the politics of gun control, said states are not at liberty to disregard federal laws and predicted few, if any, of the bills would be enacted. . . .
States can't stop federal laws from being enforced, but they can stop state or local employees from enforcing them.
Perhaps soemone should infrom said professor if laws are unconstitutional, they are illegal and unenforceable (Marbury v Madison 1803).
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the above is that SCOTUS Justices apply their personal ideological/politcal viewpoints rather than adhering to the letter of the Constitution, which is exactly how Jim Crow laws came into being.
Cherry picking what they want to apply, and not to apply is also a problem.
As as enforcement goes, I do believe that I did once explain that the Sheriff has the final say in his/hers jurisdiction under American/English Common Law.