January 30, 2013

A Null To Avoid?

There's a story about a bill in Colorado that'd negate any federal gun control laws. (a .pdf of the bill can be found right here.)

The bill would protect firearms made in Colorado that stayed in Colorado, as well as preventing state employees from enforcing federal gun control laws enacted after January 1rst of 2013 that prohibit possession of semi-autos and/or magazines, requires registration or inhibits commerce in arms for Coloradans. It provides the state attorney general may defend anyone who's charged with such a federal offense in Colorado and it makes it a misdemeanor for any federal agent to enforce such gun control laws.

Course I thought it should be a felony conviction (or at least mention tarring and feathering), and I'd like to have omitted the "enacted after" date., but that's just me.

The headline as well as the first paragraph uses the word "nullify" which would be quite catty, except I doubt most readers of that particular rag fully appreciate the reference.

From the article:

"The bill has no support from Democrats, who control both houses of the legislature, says Marble. It's set to be heard next month in the State, Veterans and Military affairs committee where it will likely die."

It likely will be killed in committee. But it'd have been nice if the alleged journalist penning this piece gave mention of whose learned opinion predicted such an outcome.

I am shocked though - shocked I tell you! The Democrats, once champions of nullification, won't get behind a bill that asserts an individuals constitutionally enumerated Rights against Federal encroachment? I wonder why...

"The bill's lack of respect for the supremacy of federal law and federal jurisdiction over states is astonishing,' said state Sen. Pat Steadman, D- Denver."

Oh. That'd explain it. Anti-federalism mixed with not only a lack of comprehension of the u.S. Constitution, but specifically the 2nd and 10th articles of the Bill of Rights.

To break it down for y'all (in case I'm not just delivering a sermon to the church's in-house singing troupe) the u.S. Constitution created the federal government by giving it specific powers. Any powers not expressly granted to it are outside of its domain. The 10th amendment reaffirms that by stating the powers not specifically granted the federal government are retained by the states or the people.

So federal law does not have supremacy over state law, unless the Constitution specifically says the feds can do that. Considering we're talking about weapons, which the 2nd article of the bill of Rights says is off limits to federal interference, then I'd say public servant Steadman is incorrect.

That's surprising as Steadman, according to his Wikipedia page, is a former lobbyist as well as an attorney. Then again if he went to Georgetown and learned under Seidman then maybe it's not so surprising.

I wonder, does his belief that the feds are masters of us all extend to Colorado's legalization of marijuana (which is still illegal under federal law)?

"Recently the County Sheriffs of Colorado called on state and national lawmakers to hold off on any "hasty" new gun laws in the wake of mass shootings in Aurora and at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn." (link in original)

Ya know when I first read about that I had the strangest urge to go out and find a copy of Support Your Local Sheriff. Just cause. But sadly (as I mentioned here before) the feds are the least of our problems round here:

"Colorado Democrats are poised to introduce legislation that would require background checks on all private gun sales and a ban on high capacity magazines in the coming weeks."

So even if this bill passes which restricts the feds to following the Constitution, the public servants of this state feel no such hindrance to their legislative desires.

Posted by Publicola at January 30, 2013 05:59 PM | TrackBack
Post a comment

Remember personal info?