![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Heard about this crap on the radio this morning.
Apparently, the NRA is leading a nationwide effort to get state and local governments to ram through laws that would make it illegal to enforce any new federal laws on gun control that might be coming down the pipe in the future, to the point that any federal agents that tried to enforce the federal laws would be potentially subject to felony prosecution.
Is this even something that is possible? Can state and local governments pass laws that would, somehow, trump federal laws? For example, WA recently passed a law that decriminalizes the use of recreational marijuana, which goes against federal laws. In that case, all supporters were saying was that they hoped the feds would go easy and not come in and start busting people for smoking pot, not that this new law somehow prevented the feds from doing so. As such, I don't see how it is possible for state/local governments to enact laws that would do something similar for gun control.
It should be noted that the NRA itself apparently opposes the Arizona law mentioned in my first link above, but only because it puts restrictions on gun dealers as well as the government.
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to say this straight up, with no mincing of words. The National Rifle Association has grown into a monster with far, far too much influence in government affairs, and it must be stopped, somehow. Period. Full stop. End of line. That's my stance on this subject, and that's all I'm going to say about that.
(EDIT)
Okay, so gun nuts are going on about the Constitution and Second Amendment this, Second Amendment that, and so on and so forth.
So, then, with that said, I wonder how these same guys happen to feel about Article VI of the US Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis mine)
I guess their only (rather shaky) argument is that any and all gun control laws are not "made in Pursuance thereof" (because they threaten their precious Second Amendment, of course) and thus can be safely ignored and legislated against on a state/local level.
However, as mentioned in that second wiki article, there is also Article III which says, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that states can't summarily nullify federal laws, and that this power lies solely with federal courts.
I guess enforcement of and adherence to the Constitution only applies when it's in their favor. Hmm.
As such, no. I'm not a legal expert here by any means, but I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that these laws forbidding federal agents from enforcing gun control laws on threat of prosecution are just as hinky as I initially suspected them to be.
(/EDIT)
Apparently, the NRA is leading a nationwide effort to get state and local governments to ram through laws that would make it illegal to enforce any new federal laws on gun control that might be coming down the pipe in the future, to the point that any federal agents that tried to enforce the federal laws would be potentially subject to felony prosecution.
Is this even something that is possible? Can state and local governments pass laws that would, somehow, trump federal laws? For example, WA recently passed a law that decriminalizes the use of recreational marijuana, which goes against federal laws. In that case, all supporters were saying was that they hoped the feds would go easy and not come in and start busting people for smoking pot, not that this new law somehow prevented the feds from doing so. As such, I don't see how it is possible for state/local governments to enact laws that would do something similar for gun control.
It should be noted that the NRA itself apparently opposes the Arizona law mentioned in my first link above, but only because it puts restrictions on gun dealers as well as the government.
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to say this straight up, with no mincing of words. The National Rifle Association has grown into a monster with far, far too much influence in government affairs, and it must be stopped, somehow. Period. Full stop. End of line. That's my stance on this subject, and that's all I'm going to say about that.
(EDIT)
Okay, so gun nuts are going on about the Constitution and Second Amendment this, Second Amendment that, and so on and so forth.
So, then, with that said, I wonder how these same guys happen to feel about Article VI of the US Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis mine)
I guess their only (rather shaky) argument is that any and all gun control laws are not "made in Pursuance thereof" (because they threaten their precious Second Amendment, of course) and thus can be safely ignored and legislated against on a state/local level.
However, as mentioned in that second wiki article, there is also Article III which says, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that states can't summarily nullify federal laws, and that this power lies solely with federal courts.
I guess enforcement of and adherence to the Constitution only applies when it's in their favor. Hmm.
As such, no. I'm not a legal expert here by any means, but I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that these laws forbidding federal agents from enforcing gun control laws on threat of prosecution are just as hinky as I initially suspected them to be.
(/EDIT)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 05:53 pm (UTC)From:Of course, local politians do not get elected unless they are A+ certified by the NRA.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-05 06:01 pm (UTC)From:Hmm... I thought I'd already blogged about this, but I guess I didn't. Or, if I did, it was probably only on FB or Twitter, rather than here.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-06 01:59 am (UTC)From:Scientific inquiry is the enemy of - and is feared by - idealogues.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-06 02:46 am (UTC)From:*Googles it* (https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&tbo=d&site=&source=hp&q=NRA+CDC&oq=NRA+CDC&gs_l=hp.3..0l6j0i8.1099.2137.0.2496.7.7.0.0.0.0.105.486.5j2.7.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.9hDfrfh-dVI)
*sighs wearily* Dammit.
No, really, I seriously don't get how and why the NRA has so much influence. I mean, people always joke about the tobacco industry or the oil industry or whoever pulling the strings of the government (and some wingnut conspiracy theorists may even actually believe it), but in the case of the NRA it seems almost literally true, and not a joking matter in the slightest.
I wonder how adversely this might affect the CDC's investigation of the supposed potential link between video games and violence. You know, given how it would be in the vested interest of the NRA that such a definitive link be found, so that they can shift the blame off of themselves and all.
Should I be putting on a tinfoil hat now? ¬_¬
no subject
Date: 2013-02-06 12:25 am (UTC)From: