Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26790
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#1

Post by The Annoyed Man »

I wasn't sure where else to post this topic, but it does concern the federal, although not yet the state of Texas:

BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws
http://benswann.com/breaking-idaho-gove ... -gun-laws/
BOISE, March 21, 2014 – On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

———{SNIP}———

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, will:
“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”
The legislation continued:
any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…
S1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon signature.
I don't know how successfully Idaho will be able to pull this off, but it is an intriguing idea, and one I wouldn't mind seeing pass here in Texas. I don't view this as a secession move, but rather as one which seeks to restore the proper balance between the federal and the state.

What do you guys think?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#2

Post by Dave2 »

The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you guys think?
I think Holder will be displeased...

Furthermore, I think the courts will not be amused. I'm not sure if I think they're approaching it the wrong way. Might it not be better to find a law that obviously violates the 10th amendment (shouldn't be too hard), and sue the federal gov over it? If the SCOTUS does their job, the ruling would solve a great many problems, and if they don't, Idaho can at least say they tried to use the "correct" channels before telling the feds to go away.
Last edited by Dave2 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26790
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#3

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you guys think?
I think Holder will be displeased...
"rlol" Indeed. :lol:
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#4

Post by jmra »

Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you guys think?
I think Holder will be displeased...
Federal judge will rule it unconstitutional. The Feds do not recognize state rights.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#5

Post by Dave2 »

jmra wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you guys think?
I think Holder will be displeased...
Federal judge will rule it unconstitutional. The Feds do not recognize state rights.
Maybe that in itself could be the basis for a lawsuit?
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26790
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#6

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Dave2 wrote:
jmra wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you guys think?
I think Holder will be displeased...
Federal judge will rule it unconstitutional. The Feds do not recognize state rights.
Maybe that in itself could be the basis for a lawsuit?
The gist of the law is that it makes the feds responsible for the enforcement of federal law, by forbidding state agencies and personnel from doing the federal government's dirty work. I not only don't think it is unconstitutional, but I don't see how the federal government can win that argument in court, without an out in the open frontal assault on the Bill of Rights. It might well be that a federal judiciary could look at such an attempt, realize that it is coming from an out of control administration, and seeing their own authority being threatened, reject the federal gummint's case.

There are plenty of cases, in all manner of criminal arrests and prosecutions, where locals cooperated with feds, but in the end, locals were enforcing local/state laws, and the feds were there to enforce federal laws; and the charges brought by local/state enforcement were local/state charges, while any federal charges were brought by the feds. All this new law does is make a clear distinction between local/state and federal interests. It doesn't forbid local/state law enforcement from working with federal LEOs. What it does is prevent them from working FOR federal LEOs. In a day and age when the federal government itself thwarts state efforts to, for instance, control the border, the federal government hasn't got a leg to stand on to try and force states to work with them. They've already made it plain.

Of course, it might mean that the feds would withhold federal largess in terms of funding various local LEO needs .............like providing local cops with armored assault vehicles ..........but the upside is that local enforcement will retain both some independence and the more intimate support of the local community.

Either way, I welcome these kinds of things because they teach DC that they can only push so far, and then there will be a push back. That is healthy.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

Jim Beaux
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:55 pm

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#7

Post by Jim Beaux »

I dont have a lot of confidence in states rights being more than speed bumps for the ever grasping Feds. If they cant get through the front door there is always the back door.

The feds have been embracing nefarious ways to control guns by subterfuge. ie. different agencies buying large quantities of ammo & EPA shutting down lead smelters, etc. I wouldnt be surprised if the feds unleash the IRS and OSHA on the gun and ammo industries....maybe even untenable tariffs on imported ammo/guns.

Nefarious tactics of the Feds to achieve political power has a long history. Take for example the abolition of slavery - The Civil War....AKA "The War of Northern Aggression". Political maneuvering of the special interests of the northern manufacturers led to passing legislation unfavorable to the agricultural south. (The Tariff of Abominations (obama-nations) added something close to 48% on imported goods & was specifically intended to hijack the southern commerce for the profit of the northern industries.) When the tariffs didnt produce the desired effects, the next step was under the guise of the abolition of slavery...but let's leave that for another day.
“In the world of lies, truth-telling is a hanging offense"
~Unknown

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#8

Post by chasfm11 »

TAM,

My take on your suggestion is: be careful what you wish for.

One of my friends saw 15 guys with "police" signs on their sleeves having lunch at a restaurant on 114 yesterday. They were driving in white SUVs without exempt license plates. There were no markings on those vehicles or on the uniforms of the men involved. I suggested to him that he could have written down a couple of the license plate numbers and gone to a local LE to see if they were, in fact, law enforcement. His idea is that they were part of Department of Homeland Security. Given that TSA was policing the Boston Marathon, I figured that was an option, too. Both of us agree that it was likely a Federal agency, rather than a local one, given the uniforms.

If laws pass that prohibit local enforcement of Federal laws and the Feds crank up the number of Federal officers to fill that void, I don't see how that is in anyone's best interests. The Feds seem to have an unlimited supply of money for such ventures.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

LabRat
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#9

Post by LabRat »

The Annoyed Man wrote:The gist of the law is that it makes the feds responsible for the enforcement of federal law, by forbidding state agencies and personnel from doing the federal government's dirty work. ....snip....
Isn't that the entire basis for the Fed's lawsuit against Arizona when that State wanted to do immigration enforcement?
IIRC, Arizona tried to enact immigration enforcement legislation and Holder sued because that was entirely a Federal domain.

If the Feds want exclusive jurisdiction over Federal laws, then that's what they get. But the State ain't gonna help you - and they shouldn't. The Feds can't claim exclusive jurisdiction on one hand and then demand State funded resources for assistance on the other and be hacked-off if they don't get both.

LabRat
This is not legal advice.
People should be able to perform many functions; for others and for themselves. Specialization is for insects. — Robert Heinlein (Severe paraphrase)

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#10

Post by srothstein »

I agree with TAM that this is the way to go on these laws. They do not really nullify federal law, despite the headlines, but just make them the duty of the feds to enforce. If the federal law says it is illegal, then it is still illegal but the local police will not arrest for it.

I understand Chasfm11's point also. Yes, the feds might enlarge their forces. And they definitely will start cutting grants or other assistance to local and state forces. But I do not see them enlarging their agencies to much. They have trouble finding men too, at least those that can pass all their required tests. And, despite the opinion of many liberals, there really is a limited pot of money in the federal budget. If the feds keep trying to enlarge their law enforcement agencies, eventually people will wake up and say no (said more hopefully than expectantly).

I would love to see a law like this passed in Texas. And we need to make sure that the agencies and their employees understand that we mean ANY assistance in enforcing these laws, including everything from uniforms during the search warrant to dispatchers running names and such for them. My only complaint is on the restriction to gun control laws. There are so many other federal laws that we should refuse to enforce based on the Constitution.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

Topic author
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26790
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#11

Post by The Annoyed Man »

LabRat wrote:Isn't that the entire basis for the Fed's lawsuit against Arizona when that State wanted to do immigration enforcement?
IIRC, Arizona tried to enact immigration enforcement legislation and Holder sued because that was entirely a Federal domain.

If the Feds want exclusive jurisdiction over Federal laws, then that's what they get. But the State ain't gonna help you - and they shouldn't. The Feds can't claim exclusive jurisdiction on one hand and then demand State funded resources for assistance on the other and be hacked-off if they don't get both.

LabRat
Exactly the point I made in the last two sentences of the second paragraph of my previous post.

chasfm11, I get your point, and I agree that it might pan out that way, but either way, the fed is going to try and extend its tentacles. If that's true, then better they expend their resources and not local resources. Like srothstein pointed out, there is a limit to how much of this they can fund.
srothstein wrote:I would love to see a law like this passed in Texas. And we need to make sure that the agencies and their employees understand that we mean ANY assistance in enforcing these laws, including everything from uniforms during the search warrant to dispatchers running names and such for them. My only complaint is on the restriction to gun control laws. There are so many other federal laws that we should refuse to enforce based on the Constitution.
Bazinga!

Beyond that, what I like about these kinds of pushbacks is that they begin to reestablish some of the states' sovereignty in matters dealing with the federal government, forcing the federal government to acknowledge that states do have some rights in these matters.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

baldeagle
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5240
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: Idaho governor signs emergency nullification legislation

#12

Post by baldeagle »

jmra wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you guys think?
I think Holder will be displeased...
Federal judge will rule it unconstitutional. The Feds do not recognize state rights.
So they're even then.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”