Inside The Conservative Campaign To Stop Cops From Enforcing Federal Gun Laws

[flamin lib]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/federal-gun-laws_n_6754416.html

States are passing "nullification laws" that effectively prevent the enforcement of federal laws, particularly gun laws. How the hell can that be?

"Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, was involved in writing the first draft of that (nullification) bill. He said he discussed the concept in 2009 while waiting to appear on Glenn Beck's Fox News show with Andrew Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, in New York City. As Marbut remembers it, Napolitano told him: "All you need to do is don't help [the federal government] enforce these federal laws, because they don't have the manpower to do it."

This can happen because in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Printz v. United States that the federal government cannot force local chief law enforcement officers to fulfill federal tasks. The gun nutz are counting on "small government" to allow them to flaunt federal laws. Well, there's more ways than one to skin that cat.

Montana receives $1.55 in federal revenues for every $1.00 it sends to Washington in the form of taxes. Wonder what happens to Montana's economy if that drops to, say, $.50? It seems that Red states are much more dependent on the federal trough than Blue states: http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Just close down a couple of military bases, cut off federal subsidies for grazing or mining on federal lands and see how long they can hold out. It can be a bitch when you bite the hand that feeds you.

[bluestateguy]

1. Good. We need to be taking powers away from the police, not giving them more

"Weapons charges" are vague, amorphous ways for police to harass people they don't like.

Is that really what we want after all that has been happening with police brutality these last few months (and well before)? We want to give the police the power to decide who is allowed to be armed and who is not? No thanks.

BTW, you may think that gun laws disproportionately impact redneck conservative white men, but that is not the case. Enforcement of gun laws disproportionately harasses black and Hispanic people.

[flamin lib]

2. From the article:

"Right now, there are a number of federal laws restricting various kinds of gun use. For example, felons, fugitives, people convicted of domestic abuse misdemeanors and people subject to certain domestic restraining orders are restricted from buying guns under federal law. And no civilians are allowed to buy newly manufactured machine guns."


Yeah, lets make sure all those people can get all the guns they want. Makes perfect sense to me. That guy who pistol whipped his girlfriend? Can't deprive him of his Second Amendment rights can we? I mean, what the hell, just 'cause a guy is convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and served time in prison is no reason to suspect that he just may use a gun for illegal purposes, right?

What I think is that you are in the wrong group.

[WDIM]

4. our government goes overseas

And kills thousands of people with guns and bombs yet we continue to allow our government to have guns? How is one more right then the other?

[flamin lib]

6. WTF?????? nt

[WDIM]

3. States do not have to enforce federal law.

The SCOTUS has ruled that states do not have to use state resources to enforce federal law.

Id say its the same thing as states not enforcing federal marijuana laws.

We dont need gun control for the people we need gun control for the government. If they want to disarm this country then it should start with our military and police. How is giving the government more rights then the people equal protection under the laws?

[flamin lib]

5. I take it you have a problem with disarming convicted violent felons,

people who have physically assaulted their significant other, and people who threaten to harm others? You really have a problem with disarming people who use and sell drugs?

This reasoning is fucking nuts.

BTW, you're in the wrong group.

[WDIM]

7. no i dont have a problem with it.

But i do disagree that a government can make itself exempt from the same laws it imposes on the people. If our government wants to impose gun laws then it should also apply the laws to itself.

[flamin lib]

8. You're being completely ridiculous.

If a cop pistol whips his wife he loses his job and personal gun.

If a soldier commits war crimes he is charged and punished. (unless he's a republican president.)

Nobody wants to take away the fucking guns unless you happen to be a convicted felon, a domestic abuser, adjudicated a danger to yourself or others.

Let me type this real slow, NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY THE GODDAMN GUNS.

[WDIM]

9. I do

I think all weapons of mass murder should be wiped off the face of the earth. I think it should start with our governments and the manufactures of weapons.

The article i assumed was talking about assualt weapon bans and the states not enforcing such bans.

The convicted felons not possessing fire arms is in most cases a state law. The article is talking about states not following federal laws that prevent the general populous from having guns. And i say as long as the government has guns so should the people. If the government wants to disarm and live by example of laws it wants to enforce then im all for it.

[Electric Monk]

11. "as long as the government has guns so should the people."

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)

"Disarm everybody or disarm nobody."

Either you're not being serious or you're just plain nuts. Either way, buh-bye from GCRA, but don't be sad, you still have the Gungeon.

/GCRA host

[Electric Monk]

12. Yes, they were a much better fit in the gungeon with their "until the gov't disarms, everyone should

have guns" routine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=161940

[billh58]

10. The NRA influence is strong

in this thread. "Nullification" is a neoconservative, Red State, TeaBilly staple, and is supported wholeheartedly by right-wingers like Larry Pratt (GOA), Judge Roy Moore, the NRA and their open-ended checking account from ALEC.

[NutmegYankee]

13. Just to note:

this method is how states are legalizing pot and allowing undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses and live normal lives.

Careful what you wish for.

[flamin lib]

14. I will wish for fewer gun deaths.

What is your wish? More guns? More freedumb? Liberty?

Or do you even give a shit as long as you and every other dildo has a gun?

[NutmegYankee]

15. I support greater personal liberties for the people

Gay Marriage, Health Care for All, A Woman's Right to Choose. And end to system enforced racism. The only thing I want heavily regulated is big business and finance. It's time to get money back into working class hands.

The war on drugs has been catastrophic to civil liberties, particularly the 4th Amendment. And it feeds a prison-industrial complex.
Getting the undocumented onto the path to citizenship will make them less exploitable as a labor source. The right wants them to stay undocumented - it makes them easy to exploit and oppress, while still using them for cheap labor. Bringing these people into our country would increase domestic demand and taxes.

[billh58]

16. All good and notable goals, except

that this is the "Gun Control Reform Activism Group." If you want to extol the virtues of guns, and their unfettered proliferation on our streets, there is another Group just for that purpose. There are also other Groups more closely aligned with the initiatives outlined in your post.

[NutmegYankee]

17. I was pointing out that the OP position may have unintended consequences.

Mainly on drug legalization and integration of undocumented workers. States are not enforcing those federal laws (drug ban and citizenship status).

[billh58]

18. The entire right-wing Teabilly

extremist movement is full of "unintended" consequences for this country. That is more or less their purpose for existing, and the point of their convoluted political posturing and theatrics.

This is just an extension of the "we lose elections because of gun control," meme, which is a direct result of the NRA/ILA. ALEC/Koch Brothers fear campaign of "Liberal, Socialist, Kenyan, dictators are coming for your guns and all other civil rights" bullshit.

Your concern is noted.

[NutmegYankee]

19. I don't follow how you get to that point?

I just wanted to basically comment "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".

[sir pball]

20. My wish is for more gun control, but the parent is absolutely correct.

Suffice it to say I'm, oh, 85% ideologically aligned with many in this group (which is, of course, insufficient) and as such wish for quite a few stricter owner controls at the Federal level.

That said, the point remains that the legal mechanism used to ignore Federal laws is identical be it regarding firearms, drugs, undocumented immigrants, environmental regulations…Arizona has as much legal standing to eliminate background checks as Colorado has to permit MJ.

Leaves you a binary choice right now - should the Feds enforce Federal law in every case or should the states have the right to ignore what laws they see fit? The former is bad for immigrants, but good for gun control. The latter, vice versa. Me, I think the Feds should legalize MJ and come up with a sane solution to the immigrant issue, while vigorously enforcing ALL Federal laws.

[flamin lib]

21. 50% is sufficient if you don't actively violate the sop.

Like a suggested reg? Log in with support. Think its a bad idea perhaps suggestions for improvement will be better than outright rejection.

My problem with nullification laws is that they create an adversarial relationship between the Fed and the State. If states can opt out of enforcement and the Fed has to come in and over ride the state law enforcement we set up a "jack booted thug/black helicopter" scenario.

There is a grey area, its called prosecutorial discretion. Yeah the law says x but we'll just let it slide for now. It happens at all levels of law enforcement. It's still confusing but it allows for some discretion on a case by case basis at both federal and state level. That's how CO gets MJ and Obama gets immigration.

OK, don't like fed gun laws? Just ignore them but don't pass a law forbidding their enforcement. You may change your mind so why cut off your nose to spite your face?

Hope this is more coherant than it looks to me at first pass . . .

[sir pball]

22. Thanks for accommodating…

SOP notwithstanding, it does seem like quite a few people here react to any critique of any proposed law quite poorly, usually telling me to take it back to the Gungeon (where I post about as often as here)…recent examples can be found fairly easily.

That said, you were perfectly coherent and make a good point about explicit preemption/nullification laws; while I wouldn't support a change to Federal law forcing enforcement I'd be interested in the possibility of pursuing action against a state or prosecutor whose discretion resulted in harm, e.g. eliminating BGCs enabled a felon to get a gun, cross state lines, and kill, or a state refuses to enforce the AP ammo ban, somebody gets hold of some 5.7x28 SS190 ("true" AP, designed for a handgun and defeats soft armor) and kills a cop. Unfortunately that seems like a proposition that would have to be tested after the fact.