Skip to comments.Declaring an Emergency, Idaho Governor Signs Gun Grab Nullification
Posted on 03/26/2014 10:18:26 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Tuesday, 25 March 2014 16:35
On Wednesday, March 19, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed a powerful protection against the federal gun grab into law in the Gem State.
The bill, SB 1332, came to Otters desk after being passed unanimously (with three abstentions) by the state House and Senate.
The published purpose of SB 1332, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, makes clear the intent of state lawmakers:
This legislation is to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal orders, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after January 1, 2014, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens' rights under the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 11. This Constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except those actually used in commission of a felony, and disallows other restrictions on a lawful citizen's right to own firearms and ammunition.
The State Affairs Committee,the listed author of the bill, was right to point out the states right to refuse to execute unconstitutional demands of the federal government. The authors understood that states are constitutionally, legally, and historically on solid ground when they hold these usurpations as null, void, and of no legal effect. That state governments have the power to take this tack with regard to unconstitutional acts of the federal government, the Founders were universally agreed, as I have explained in earlier articles.
Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the authority of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.
Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the federal government to enact laws that they expect the people to obey.
That is to say, the Constitution is an agency agreement between the states (the principals) and the federal government (the agent).
The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first partys behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority.
Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the federal government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.
The authority of the agent in this case the federal government is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power.
Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agents authority) for that breach.
Under the law of agency, finally, the principals (states) may revoke the agents (the federal governments) authority at will. It would be unreasonable to force the principals to honor promises of an agent that has acted outside the limits of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place the Constitution.
The Founders explained the philosophy behind the principle on several occasions:
In The Federalist, No. 33, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
He restated that principle in a later letter, No. 78:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
James Madison, also writing in The Federalist Papers, recommended that state legislators, in order to prevent federal abridgment of fundamental liberties, should refuse to co-operate with the officers of the Union.
This refusal to assist in the abridgment of fundamental liberties is also part of a principle of federalism known as anti-commandeering.
Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern international and interstate matters.
While this expression of federalism (dual sovereignty as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case of New York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States (1997).
Sheriff Richard Mack was one of the named plaintiffs in the latter landmark case, and on the website of his organization the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, he recounts the basic facts of the case:
The Mack/Printz case was the case that set Sheriff Mack on a path of nationwide renown as he and Sheriff Printz sued the Clinton administration over unconstitutional gun control measures, were eventually joined by other sheriffs for a total of seven, went all the way to the supreme court and won.
There is much more ammo in this historic and liberty-saving Supreme Court ruling. We have been trying to get state and local officials from all over the country to read and study this most amazing ruling for almost two decades. Please get a copy of it today and pass it around to your legislators, county commissioners, city councils, state reps, even governors!
The Mack/Printz ruling makes it clear that the states do not have to accept orders from the feds!
Writing for the majority in the Mack/Printz case, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:
As Madison expressed it: "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]
This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
When the federal government assumes powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, it puts the states on the road toward obliteration and citizens on the road to enslavement.
One of the most important sections of the new Idaho law is the final one which declares that an emergency is hereby declared to exist and thus the law goes into immediate effect.
Recently, the legislatures of Missouri and Arizona have approved similar legislation, flying in the face of those who would deny the ability and will of states to nullify any and all federal acts that violate the limits placed on that power placed in the Constitution. By enforcing the boundaries states protect their citizens from federal tyranny and obviate the need for a dangerous constitutional convention to fix the Constitution.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at email@example.com.
U da HO’ smacks the Feds down....
Huh! Word must be getting out from Washington insiders that BHO2 is going to produce some unconstitutional Executive Order seizing all firearms.
thanks for the post.
I entered both SB 1332 and “ Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act” at the Idaho Senate website and couldn’t find it.
Maybe I’m all thumbs. Have you read it?
The Feds used to be smart about this. Instead of just enacting a federal law, they’d bribe the states to enact the law they wanted. (This is how we got highway speed limits and public school.) Once most everyone was on board, then they’d make a federal law to catch the stragglers.
Now they just do it. It’s all stick and no carrot. If you want to get people behind you, you have to pay them.
Personally, I’m fine with this. Now people can actually see that their rights are being taken from them instead of shrugging and giving them away.
similar bills must be pushed to all states immediately
some will pass... others won’t. at least some will get protection
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixty-second Legislature Second Regular Session - 2014
IN THE SENATE
SENATE BILL NO. 1332
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 AN ACT
2 RELATING TO FIREARMS; PROVIDING A SHORT TITLE; PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE IN-
3 TENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TITLE 18, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A
4 NEW SECTION 18-3315B, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS
5 REGARDING FIREARMS BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENTAL
6 ENTITIES, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, TO ESTABLISH THAT CERTAIN LAWS ARE UN-
7 ENFORCEABLE IN IDAHO BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AGENTS OR
8 EMPLOYEES AND TO DEFINE A TERM; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING
9 AN EMERGENCY.
10 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
11 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
12 “Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act.”
13 SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the Legislature in
14 enacting this act to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being di-
15 rected, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws,
16 rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date
17 of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights un-
18 der Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. This
19 Idaho constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except
20 those actually used in the commission of a felony, and disallows other re-
21 strictions on a citizen’s lawful right to own firearms and ammunition. This
22 act provides that no Idaho law enforcement official shall knowingly and
23 willingly order an action that is contrary to the provisions of Section 11,
24 Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. The Legislature does
25 not intend to affect an Idaho law enforcement officer who assists federal
26 agents on drug or gang enforcement activities. The Legislature intends to
27 create a penalty for an official, agent or employee of the State of Idaho or a
28 political subdivision thereof that orders an unlawful confiscation without
29 penalizing officers that follow orders. Idaho law enforcement officers are
30 partners with Idaho citizens in protecting the rights as outlined in both the
31 United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Idaho.
32 SECTION 3. That Chapter 33, Title 18, Idaho Code, be, and the same is
33 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and des-
34 ignated as Section 18-3315B, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
35 18-3315B. PROHIBITION OF REGULATION OF CERTAIN FIREARMS. (1) Other
36 than compliance with an order of the court, any official, agent or employee
37 of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and
38 willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a po-
39 litical subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency or-
40 der, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in2
1 subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory
2 or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not
3 to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general
4 fund of the state, and on a second or subsequent violation shall be guilty
5 of a misdemeanor. If a public officer or person commits a violation of sec-
6 tion 18-315 or section 18-703, Idaho Code, the public officer or person shall
7 be punished as provided in those sections. Nothing in this section shall be
8 construed to affect the law of search and seizure as set forth in section 17,
9 article I of the constitution of the state of Idaho or as set forth in the
10 fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution.
11 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this act, no
12 private cause of action exists under this section.
13 (2) No federal executive order, agency order, law, statute, rule or
14 regulation issued, enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date
15 of this act, shall be knowingly and willfully ordered to be enforced by any
16 official, agent or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the
17 state if contrary to the provisions of section 11, article I, of the consti-
18 tution of the state of Idaho.
19 (3) “Enforcement” shall not be construed to include the performance of
20 any act solely for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of firearms under
21 federal law. Any order of enforcement not excluded by the provisions of this
22 subsection that occurs on and after the effective date of this act shall be
23 and is a breach of the oath of office of the official, agent or employee of the
24 state or a political subdivision of the state.
25 SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this act are hereby declared
26 to be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
27 provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason,
28 such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
29 this act.
30 SECTION 5. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby
31 declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its
32 passage and approval.
Put out a fresh bowl of punch and the Government will throw turds into it immediately.
Indiana passed this in 2010:
IC 34-28-7, the state, a political subdivision, or any other person may not prohibit or restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during:
(1) a disaster emergency;
(2) an energy emergency; or
(3) a local disaster emergency;
declared under this chapter.
SOURCE: IC 34-6-2-46.7; (10)HB1065.1.3. —> SECTION 3. IC 34-6-2-46.7 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]: Sec. 46.7. “Firearm”, for purposes of IC 34-28-7 and IC 34-30-20, has the meaning set forth in IC 35-47-1-5.
SOURCE: IC 34-6-2-49; (10)HB1065.1.4. —> SECTION 4. IC 34-6-2-49 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]: Sec. 49. (a) “Governmental entity”, for purposes of section 91 of this chapter, IC 34-13-2, IC 34-13-3, and IC 34-13-4, means the state or a political subdivision of the state.
(b) “Governmental entity”, for purposes of section 103(j) of this chapter, means the state or a political subdivision of the state.
SOURCE: IC 34-6-2-103; (10)HB1065.1.5. —> SECTION 5. IC 34-6-2-103 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]: Sec. 103. (a) “Person”, for purposes of IC 34-14, has the meaning set forth in IC 34-14-1-13.
(b) “Person”, for purposes of IC 34-24-4, means:
(1) an individual;
(2) a governmental entity;
(3) a corporation;
(4) a firm;
(5) a trust;
(6) a partnership; or
(7) an incorporated or unincorporated association that exists under or is authorized by the laws of this state, another state, or a foreign country.
(c) “Person”, for purposes of section 44.8 of this chapter, means an adult or a minor.
(d) “Person”, for purposes of IC 34-26-4, has the meaning set forth in IC 35-41-1-22.
(e) “Person”, for purposes of IC 34-30-5, means any of the following:
(1) An individual.
(2) A corporation.
(3) A partnership.
(4) An unincorporated association.
I guess you could say that the governors are...
Or this is just good red meat to lure right-wing voters to polls during an election season.
That is a good thing.
I’m not familiar with the law you cite in your post. Taking a quick glance I get the impression it may just apply to First Responders, not the citizenry at large. Could you clarify?
Aw come on, it wasn’t that bad! HA!
I don’t know but I am thinking that the first responders are included because they commonly refuse to assist people who are armed with personal weapons. I recall there was a large forest fire and some property owners broke the law by returning to their property and used bulldozers to clear the brush away from their buildings. When the forestry officials became aware of the situation they sent in some firefighters to escort the property owners off of the property. They were required to leave their weapons at the scene if they wanted to ride in the forestry vehicles.
I’m thinking this fire was in either AZ, NM, or CO. About 10 years ago.
Turn in yer mouse.
It could be something like that. It certainly appears to have nothing to do with Federal Gun Grab Nullification.
Oh the humanity, my mouse will be jobless!
Who were those three - and why did they abstain? Maybe something to keep in mind in the next election.
It was meant for all. It was part of the right to carry to work law.