Idaho Has Declared It Won’t Obey New Federal Gun Laws

In conservative states, “nullification” laws are becoming popular — but they’re likely pointless.

This February 4, 2013 photo illustration in Manassas, Virginia, shows a Remington 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a Colt .45 semi-auto handgun, a Walther PK380 semi-auto handgun and various ammunition clips with a copy of the US Constitution on top of the American flag. US President Barack Obama Monday heaped pressure on Congress for action 'soon' on curbing gun violence. Obama made a pragmatic case for legislation on the contentious issue, arguing that just because political leaders could not save every life, they should at least try to save some victims of rampant gun crime. 
National Journal
Emma Roller
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Emma Roller
March 25, 2014, 1 a.m.

Last Fri­day, Idaho passed a law de­clar­ing that the state does not have to abide by fed­er­al gun laws go­ing for­ward. The law, which crim­in­al­izes the en­force­ment of fed­er­al gun laws, passed un­an­im­ously in both the House and the Sen­ate and takes ef­fect im­me­di­ately.

Un­der the new law, state law-en­force­ment of­fi­cials could also be fined up to $1,000 and charged with a mis­de­mean­or for en­for­cing fed­er­al gun laws.

“This is an im­port­ant first step for Idaho,” Tenth Amend­ment Cen­ter spokes­man Mike Ma­harrey told Ben­Swann.com. “Get­ting this law passed will en­sure that any new plans or ex­ec­ut­ive or­ders that might be com­ing our way will not be en­forced in Idaho. Then, once this meth­od is es­tab­lished and shown to be ef­fect­ive, le­gis­lat­ors can circle back and start do­ing the same for fed­er­al gun con­trol already on the books.”

Both Alaska and Kan­sas have passed sim­il­ar “nul­li­fic­a­tion” laws. Kan­sas ap­proved the Second Amend­ment Pro­tec­tion Act last April, and Alaska en­acted a sim­il­ar law in June. A ProP­ub­lica in­vest­ig­a­tion from last spring found that at least 37 oth­er states have in­tro­duced sim­il­ar bills. Un­der the Kan­sas law, res­id­ents could “man­u­fac­ture and sell semi-auto­mat­ic weapons in-state without a fed­er­al li­cense or any fed­er­al over­sight.” The law also made it a felony for fed­er­al au­thor­it­ies to en­force any law that con­flicts with state law.

Idaho’s Le­gis­lature — which en­joys a Re­pub­lic­an su­per­ma­jor­ity in both its cham­bers — has be­come home to many state laws that at­tempt to cir­cum­vent fed­er­al law. Earli­er this month, the state tried and failed to pass a bill that would have out­lawed fed­er­al en­vir­on­ment­al reg­u­la­tions. And in 2011, Idaho tried to de­clare the Af­ford­able Care Act null and void. Since then, Gov. Butch Ot­ter has come un­der at­tack from his fel­low Re­pub­lic­ans for soften­ing his po­s­i­tion on Obama­care.

Writ large, many con­ser­vat­ive states are ex­plor­ing cre­at­ive but ar­cane ways to cir­cum­vent fed­er­al law. One grow­ing con­ser­vat­ive cause at the state level, the Art­icle V move­ment, would at­tempt to call a con­ven­tion of states to make laws in lieu of fed­er­al over­sight.

The prob­lem for states that have passed such nul­li­fic­a­tion laws is that they are un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, prima facie. The Con­sti­tu­tion’s su­prem­acy clause es­tab­lishes that fed­er­al law trumps state law, and pre­ced­ent has es­tab­lished the Su­preme Court as the ul­ti­mate ar­bit­er of a law’s con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity. Un­der the su­prem­acy clause, for ex­ample, fed­er­al drug-en­force­ment agents could tech­nic­ally ar­rest marijuana users in Col­or­ado or Wash­ing­ton, even though it is leg­al un­der state law. For the same reas­on, Obama­care is the law of the land, wheth­er states like it or not.

After the Kan­sas law was passed, U.S. At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Hold­er wrote a let­ter to Gov. Sam Brown­back say­ing the law was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al. “Fed­er­al of­ficers who are re­spons­ible for en­for­cing fed­er­al laws and reg­u­la­tions in or­der to main­tain pub­lic safety can­not be forced to choose between the risk of a crim­in­al pro­sec­u­tion by a state and the con­tin­ued per­form­ance of their fed­er­al du­ties,” Hold­er wrote. “The United States will take all ap­pro­pri­ate ac­tion, in­clud­ing lit­ig­a­tion if ne­ces­sary, to pre­vent the State of Kan­sas from in­ter­fer­ing with the activ­it­ies of fed­er­al of­fi­cials en­for­cing fed­er­al law.”

Still, these states ar­gue that they, not the Su­preme Court, should be the ul­ti­mate ar­bit­ers of a law’s con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity: “This is def­in­itely a case that could make it to the Su­preme Court,” Kan­sas Sec­ret­ary of State Kris Kobach said back in 2013. “There is noth­ing sym­bol­ic about this law.”

So iron­ic­ally, in or­der for these laws to re­main leg­al, states would have to get the Su­preme Court to agree to its own im­pot­ence in mat­ters of con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity when state laws are in­volved. It’s a bit of a catch-22. For now, though, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment mostly seems to be ig­nor­ing these laws and car­ry­ing on with busi­ness as usu­al.

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
21 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×