With Congress looking to cram gun control down our throats, it looks like many of us are going to have to at least start considering how we’re going to deal with the new regulations. I know some will ignore them, some will grudgingly comply, and some will probably do something completely different.
Yet the state of Alabama is doing something where, if things continue, will keep their citizens from having to make such a choice.
A House committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would attempt to nullify all federal gun laws in Alabama and ban state law enforcement from enforcing them.
The House Public Safety and Homeland Security approved the bill, sponsored by Rep. Tommy Hanes, R-Bryant, on a voice vote.
The measure is one of several attempts by Republican legislators around the country to block attempts at gun control by the Democratic-controlled Congress. But it goes further than most by trying to stop the enforcement of current federal gun laws, including those regulating automatic weapons.
Just an interruption here to point out how the “journalist” writing this clearly doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about. Actual “automatic” weapons are already regulated. The push now is for semi-automatic weapons.
But, then again, he or she well may know precisely what it means and is intentionally trying to muddy the waters. In this day and age, it really could go either way.
Anywho, moving on…
“All federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulation whether past, present or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution shall be invalid in this state,” Hanes said before the vote. “That’s what it does.”
The “journalist” goes on to invoke the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
Funny how that gets mentioned and yet the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” clause is continually left out of the conversation. It’s almost (read: exactly) like they’re cherry-picking which parts of the Constitution matter and when.
I mean, the supremacy clause was never really an issue before when cities decided to stand in the way of enforcement of immigration laws. Nor was it really an issue when states decided to ignore federal drug laws. So, with that in mind, I find invoking the supremacy clause to be absolutely ridiculous.
As it stands, sanctuary state laws exist to set a stage. Either they’ll stand and the federal government will respect the 10th Amendment for a change, or they won’t in which case they’ve set the precedent for dealing with other states thumbing their nose at federal law.
Yet they do more than just that. They’re also a warning to the federal government that they can pass whatever laws they think they can get away with, but portions of the country aren’t willing to just roll over and play their games.
It’s up to Congress whether they really want to go down that road knowing just how many people in this country aren’t just unwilling to support such legislation, but are willing to outright defy it.