Nullification: Federal gun laws may soon not apply in Arizona

Federal gun laws are facing a tough battle.

Phoenix, February 24, 2014 – Arizona could become the latest in a series of states acting to nullify federal gun laws. The Second Amendment Preservation Act would nullify federal gun laws within Arizona borders. State senator Kelli Ward, along with eight other senators, introduced SB1294. The bill, if passed into law, would prohibit the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.”

Senator Ward said “We’ve sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough. We’re going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights.” The Tenth Amendment Center asserts that the legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. That means the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations — constitutional or not.



The anti-commandeering doctrine rests on four Supreme Court cases: Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) New York v. United States (1992) , Printz v. United States (1997) and Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the 1997 case, Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the “lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine”. The case specifically addressed state enforcement of federal gun laws. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling:

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

The Tenth Amendment Center says the blueprint for anti-commandeering doctrine comes from Founding Father, James Madison, in the Federalist 46 of the Federalist Papers. Madison wrote:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano last year urged states to pass this type of non-compliance legislation, saying that a single state passing such a law would “make federal enforcement of tighter federal gun laws nearly impossible.” Supporters of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, SB129, view the legislation as protecting the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens. Supporters also note that other states have enacted – or are in the process of enacting – similar laws to stop federal legislation in violation of the Second Amendment and other protected rights.
Last year, Kansas passed a law that “bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines.” The Kansas law criminalize’s federal law enforcement, making any attempt to enforce federal laws a felony if the gun is made in Kansas, stamped “Made in Kansas”, and has not crossed states lines. Missouri is also considering a bill that nullifies federal gun laws within state borders. Florida, likewise, is considering a bill to prevent any “agent of the state or its political subdivisions from participating with or assisting federal agents in the enforcement of federal gun laws.”

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication February 24, 2014).

Ninth Circuit strikes down California law restricting concealed weapons carry in Peruta v San Diego

San Diego, Calif., February 13, 2014 — California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns. In a 2-1 decision issued on February 13th, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled “San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show ‘good cause’” before being allowed “to obtain a concealed carry permit.”

California has long had some of the nation’s strongest restrictions on gun ownership, and, according to the court, is one of only eight states that allow local governments to deny concealed-weapons permits. State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The court noted that the state did not accept the desire to be able to defend oneself as sufficient to demonstrate “good cause”.

California’s law was challenged by the National Rifle and Pistol Foundation (NRPF) and individuals who challenged the San Diego County system. C.D. Michael, lawyer for the NRPF, said “The right to self-defense doesn’t end at your threshold.”
The court agreed, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense both inside and outside of the home. Judge O’Scannlain’s majority opinion emphasized “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” The courts said the Second Amendment must be read as including “the right to carry weapons outside the home” because “the risk of armed confrontation” is in no way limited to one’s home, citing the examples of “a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site.”

This author previously wrote a two-part series on the Second Amendment extending outside of one’s home based on Supreme Court’s 2008, D.C v Heller ruling. In the ruling, the high court says:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

As previously noted, the Supreme Courts ruling says “for lawful purposes”, plural, and then says “such as self-defense within the home.” This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller, including hunting, resisting tyranny from the government, repelling an invasion, suppressing an insurrection, in addition to self-defense. Hunting, resisting tyranny, repelling an invasion, and suppressing insurrection all require one to be outside of the home. And as is covered in part two of the series, the language used in Heller in no way suggests that self-defense itself would be confined to the home.

The Supreme Court wrote in Heller that people at the time of ratification understood the Second Amendment as protecting “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and that “Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repel force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury” (p.21). Further, Heller reaffirms the court’s prior definition of “bear arms” in Muscarello v. United States, that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person” (p.10).

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is in line with this analysis of what the Supreme Court has already clearly stated in Heller, as well as Muscarello and MacDonald v Chicago. Citing Heller, the Ninth Circuit’s judgment states: “Second Amendment codified a pre-exisiting, individual right to keep and bear arms and that that central component of the right is self-defense” (p.6). The Ninth Circuit further states “…people are more sensibly said to bear Arms in nondomestic settings” (p.16). Citing McDonald v Chicago, the Ninth Circuit notes that: “self-defense, recognized since ancient times as a basic right, is the central component of the Second Amendment… consequently, that right restricted not only the Federal government but under the Fourteeth Amendment, also the states” (p.7). Therefore, California’s law was stricken.

The Ninth Circuit ruling is a departure from other federal appeals courts that have upheld similar laws in New York, New Jersey and Maryland. But the decision concurs with an appellate court that struck down Illinois’ absolute ban on concealed weapons in public. The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue. If that happens, gun rights activists can expect the Ninth Circuit court’s ruling to be upheld, since it is built upon multiple – and several recent – Supreme Court rulings.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication February 20, 2014).

Centennial High School Shooting: The quick response by an armed school guard – a local sheriff deputy – proves the NRA is right – good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.

Mainstream media quickly dropped recent school shooting that took place in Centennial, Colorado December 13, 2013 once it was reported there was no AR-15 involved by Law Enforcement Officials. However, in regard to the gun debate, and what might be done to prevent violence at our schools, the most important fact is that the incident was over in less than 80 seconds because of the rapid response from an armed police officer on campus. “[The shooter] committed suicide in the libraryas an armed deputy stationed at the school cornered him, police said.”

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in Newtown, CT, the NRA advocated the use of armed personnel, in whatever form any particular school district deemed appropriate, police, retired law enforcement, or armed faculty and staff. Many school districts utilize local police and sheriff’s departments. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from almost half of police and one-third of sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) in roughly half of all schools. Following Newtown, some districts have also allowed for school staff to be armed while at school as well.

The NRA was severely criticized by liberals, mainstream media, and anti-gun organizations as crass and insensitive. ‘How dare they?’ liberals quipped. ‘Isn’t it obvious the last thing we need is more guns in schools?’, they berated.

It turns out the NRA was right.

What actually should be obvious to any observer with even the smallest hint of objectivity is that if nearly half of schools are already utilizing armed ‘good guys’ that it should be looked at as a serious option. Liberals might be shocked to learn that President Clinton signed a bill that provided millions in additional funding to do just that following the tragedy at Columbine, just miles from the Centennial shooting.

This most recent incident is tragic – an innocent girl murdered. Yet it could have been much more tragic were it not the extremely rapid response from armed officer at Arapahoe High School. “In less than 80 seconds”, the incident was over. By contrast, the Columbine incident lasted nearly an hour.

The shooter took his life after being cornered. Facing armed response from a good guy who could shoot back should he attempt violent resistance, or the prospect of facing the consequences of his actions if he surrendered, he choose to shoot himself. Parents and school boards everywhere should be taking note: “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school,” said Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson. “Once [the deputy] learned of the threat, he ran …yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff. We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.” The Sheriff also credited the adoption of the so-called active shooter response protocol, which was developed after Columbine, and lockdown rehearsal drills practiced by school staff and students.

Barring the rapid response from an armed officer, there very likely could have been more innocent children killed. The shooter had a pump-action shotgun, 125 shotgun shells, a machete, and three molotov cocktails, one of which was used in the library where he shot Claire Davis, and attempted to shoot the school librarian. Because of the SRO’s quick response, he was contained in the library, where he also took his own life, with no more innocent loss of life. This is not the assessment of the “evil” NRA’s say-so, this is the local, elected-and-accountable-to-the-people Sheriff. The NRA is vindicated, again, by this outcome: a good guy with a guy and the threat potential of returned force to the bad guy, prevented any further innocent deaths.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication January 18, 2014).

Centennial High School Shooting Fast Response Proves NRA Right – Good Guys With Guns Stop Bad Guys

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jan 18, 2014 | Gun Control Facts | 1 comment

Centennial High School Shooting: The quick response by an armed school guard – a local sheriff deputy – proves the NRA is right – good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.

Mainstream media quickly dropped recent school shooting that took place in Centennial, Colorado December 13, 2013 once it was reported there was no AR-15 involved by Law Enforcement Officials. However, in regard to the gun debate, and what might be done to prevent violence at our schools, the most important fact is that the incident was over in less than 80 seconds because of the rapid response from an armed police officer on campus. “[The shooter] committed suicide in the library as an armed deputy stationed at the school cornered him, police said.”

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in Newtown, CT, the NRA advocated the use of armed personnel, in whatever form any particular school district deemed appropriate, police, retired law enforcement, or armed faculty and staff. Many school districts utilize local police and sheriff’s departments. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from almost half of police and one-third of sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) in roughly half of all schools. Following Newtown, some districts have also allowed school staff to be armed while at school as well.

The NRA was severely criticized by liberals, mainstream media, and anti-gun rights organizations as crass and insensitive. ‘How dare they?’ liberals quipped. ‘Isn’t it obvious the last thing we need is more guns in schools?’, they berated.

It turns out the NRA was right.

What actually should be obvious to any observer with even the smallest hint of objectivity is that if nearly half of schools are already utilizing armed ‘good guys’ that it should be looked at as a serious option. Liberals might be shocked to learn that President Clinton signed a bill that provided millions in additional funding to do just that following the tragedy at Columbine, just miles from the Centennial shooting.

This most recent incident is tragic – an innocent girl murdered. Yet it could have been much more tragic were it not the extremely rapid response from armed officer at Arapahoe High School. “In less than 80 seconds”, the incident was over. By contrast, the Columbine incident lasted nearly an hour.

The shooter took his life after being cornered. Facing armed response from a good guy who could shoot back should he attempt violent resistance, or the prospect of facing the consequences of his actions if he surrendered, he choose to shoot himself. Parents and school boards everywhere should be taking note: “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school,” said Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson. “Once [the deputy] learned of the threat, he ran …yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff. We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.” The Sheriff also credited the adoption of the so-called active shooter response protocol, which was developed after Columbine, and lockdown rehearsal drills practiced by school staff and students.

Barring the rapid response from an armed officer, there very likely could have been more innocent children killed. The shooter had a pump-action shotgun, 125 shotgun shells, a machete, and three molotov cocktails, one of which was used in the library where he shot student Claire Davis, and attempted to shoot the school librarian. Because of the SRO’s quick response, he was contained in the library, where he also took his own life, with no more innocent loss of life. This is not the press release of the NRA, this is the assessment of  locally elected and accountable-to-the-people Sheriff. The NRA is vindicated – again – by this outcome: a good guy with a guy and the threat potential of returned force to the bad guy, prevented any further innocent deaths.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Jan 18, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.