An easy way for a state to bypass the Feds on the 2nd Amendment

[paulhager]

I came up with an idea some years ago that should permit states to constitutionally bypass all Federal Gun Laws.

As we know, Federal gun laws exempt state law enforcement. The obvious solution is for a state to declare that all citizens over the age of 18 are members of the unorganized militia - they already are but put it into law. All members of the unorganized militia can lawfully arm themselves with any weapon used by the State Police so long as they obtain a license and pass a qualifying test. Once they have done this, they are considered to be reserve state police officers, available if called upon. As reserve police they are immediately exempt.

No more paying the Feds a $200 tax and filling out all sorts of paperwork for machine guns and no more post 1986 machine gun ban. Want a brand new M-4? No problem.

If the state declares most citizens are reserve police, there's not a lot the Feds can do.

The above approach has the advantage that it is less confrontational as nullification and saves nullification for other broadly unpopular Federal Laws such as Obamacare or the TSA.

 

[45calibre]

keep dreaming.

 

[digitalphoenix]

$200.00 tax? That's like a penalty to own a sporting rifle!

 

[HoughMade]

Guess what! In Indiana, all adults, unless specifically exempted, are already part of the militia....but it doesn't mean what you hope it means.

 

[MikeDVB]

Guess what! In Indiana, all adults, unless specifically exempted, are already part of the militia....but it doesn't mean what you hope it means.

Do elaborate please.

 

[HavokCycle]

keep dreaming.

said the naysayers when California passed medicinal marijuana bills despite fed law.

 

[HoughMade]

Do elaborate please.

It's in the Indiana Constitution and Indiana Code, but it has never been interpreted as a means to end run federal firearm law.

 

[HoughMade]

said the naysayers when California passed medicinal marijuana bills despite fed law.

Who can still be prosecuted by the Feds regardless of what state law says.

 

[Lex Concord]

I don't know why we would want to "save" nullification or avoid confrontation on this issue. I just pray that, if IT comes to pass, that one of these Sheriffs that has been promising to arrest feds who attempt to enforce will actually stick to his guns.

The fact is, if the Second is finally effectively gutted, the Constitution won't even be given lip service. It will be dead, as will many of those who would continue to vocally advocate its resuscitation.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Specifically in reference to states try to ignore federal law, some people need to review the Supremacy Clause

 

[EnochRoot43]

"The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution."

Perhaps states should give as much respect to the Supremacy Clause as the Federal Gov't gives to the 10th Amendment.

 

[paulhager]

Guess what! In Indiana, all adults, unless specifically exempted, are already part of the militia....but it doesn't mean what you hope it means.

Not what I said. I merely suggest that State Government can effectively declare everyone over the age of 18 can now get a personal protection license is also the functionally equivalent of a auxillary state police officer and, as such, entitled to carry any weapon carried by state police.

I'm not saying anything about how likely it is that Indiana might do it. Merely that it is a legal way around the Feds. It avoids direct confrontation over Federal versus state powers - something I discuss in the CIVIL OBEDIENCE thread elsewhere. In that thread I advocate pushing state nullification. Since that is a movement that is getting started, it has some momentum.

 

[paulhager]

"The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution."

Perhaps states should give as much respect to the Supremacy Clause as the Federal Gov't gives to the 10th Amendment.

Correct. I started the thread https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/264219-civil_obedience.html to specifically discuss this issue.

 

[Walken]

Sort of crazy, but I like it. "BADGES FOR EVERYONE!" It's clever at least unlike secession petitions and small towns flatly declaring the feds have no jurisdiction.