Whaddya mean TehFed ain’t Teh King?!?


Lord of the Fleas for catching this little- covered story:

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.

Here’s the bit that caught my eye:

The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. United States serves as the cornerstone.

…Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said … “People are beginning to realize that this practice is completely constitutional and legal. In the near future, you will see a wave of states passing even broader legislation to fight the federal government on everything ranging from more traditionally liberal issues like hemp and marijuana, to more conservative issues like Obamacare.”

Boldin continued, “Nullification isn’t a left vs. right issue. It destroys the fallacy of the left right paradigm and is the remedy for all unconstitutional laws.”

More details: States Don’t Have to Comply: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Here’s another thing [caution: heavy NYT snark alert]…

There’s a lot of concern about new legislation in Georgia that expands how people can buy, carry and use guns. It reduces some licensing requirements and provides Georgians with a stronger “Stand Your Ground” defense should they feel threatened and decide to open fire. Some critics were calling it the “guns everywhere” law. That is so unfair.

…Georgia lawmakers were careful to continue to ban the carrying of weapons in government buildings with security checkpoints, like the Capitol itself, though guns are welcomed in buildings without screening…

This bill is evidence that cynics were wrong when they said nothing would come of the surge of attention to guns after the Newtown, Conn., massacre in December 2012. Since then, The Times reported, 70 laws have been passed to loosen restrictions.


  1. staghounds
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 8:54 am |

    The NYT has a very good point.

    Now I have to go wash my keyboard out with soap…

  2. DougM (Bison Party)
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 10:42 am |

    Re: “70 laws have been passed to loosen restrictions”
    Almost all of those new laws either clarified clumsy legal points left over from the pre-CCH days or which hampered practical concealed-carry or self-defense. They were based on the practical experience of other states, not on Prog-style should-be legislating.

    What have they got against reasonable gun-control laws?

  3. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm |

    What have they got against reasonable gun-control laws
    There are no ‘reasonable’*spit* gun control laws, except parts about citizen, adjudicated mentally ill and felon, which was your point, but my bullshit detector pegs at red when one of my legislators uses that word. That, and “commonsense” – all one word, set me off.
    About Georgia and Idaho – I’m joyous, and would like to be a fly on the wall of some Progs there to hear the hysterical wailing.
    With the election of Governor Terry McAwful, (Dem, Clintonista) here in Virginia, we won’t have a shot at that or a Stand Your Ground law for four years, if ever, unless we can cede Fairfax and King William counties back to DC.

  4. DougM (Bison Party)
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 10:00 pm |

    ^ I was bein’ sarcastic and usin’ the GFWs own stupid line against ‘em.

  5. Hopefulone
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 1:19 am |

    Feds get around “anti-commandeering” by saying “sure, do what you want, but we will withhold “Federal” money to your state.” The marxists will figure out what bag of money to withhold in this case …and Boehner will support the marxists.

  6. DougM (Bison Party)
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:16 am |

    ^ Spot on.
    I don’t see how it’s constitutional to send Fedfunds to states for things the Fedgov is not constitutionally allowed to do itself. I mean, the Constitution requires a law to appropriate the money, and the Fedgov cannot spend any money not appropriated by a … wait for it … law passed by constitutional means. Mebbe somebody determined that handing money to states is not “spending” or something. Dunno.