Florida takes on federal gun control.

[Allme]

Looks like preventative measures to me.


https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2 ... nd-future/

Florida Bill Would Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Feb 23, 2021|Categories: Right to Keep and Bear Arms, State Bills|

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Feb. 23, 2021) – A bill filed in the Florida House would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Rep. Kaylee Tuck (R- Lake Placid) introduced House Bill 1205 (H1205) on Feb. 22. The legislation would ban any person, including any public servant, as defined in Florida Statute 838.014, from enforcing or attempting to enforce any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

HB1205 is similar to a bill moving forward in Missouri.

DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:

taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition, or their owners, that would have a chilling effect;
any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The proposed law defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”

Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s bump-stock ban, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.

The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.

The bills also include provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.

Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.

In other words, Florida law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Florida law enforcement again.

EFFECTIVE

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

LEGAL BASIS

The state of Florida can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement 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 any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.

WHAT’S NEXT

H1205 will be introduced and referred to a House Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Similar legislation is also under consideration in a number of other states as listed below. Supporters are urged to contact their state senator and representative (find contact info here) to urge them to cosponsor and support. For all other states, suggested model legislation is available here (pdf)

[Flame Red]

I'm sorry, but we are in the era of Libitards in charge...

Any Anti-Gun Libiturd laws passed at the state level trump Federal Law.

But

Pro-Gun laws passed at the state level are over-ruled by Federal Law.

[TACC]

This is what I would like to see passed.

Does our new GOA rep have any other insight on this.

Such as the internet letter that we can blast their inboxes with?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Springfield]

Pro-Gun laws passed at the state level are over-ruled by Federal Law.

Only if the Fed has jurisdiction. Inter-state is a Federal matter, but keeping within Florida may not be. Although Fed can cut-off funds and similar coercive measures.

[tector]

All depends on the US Supreme Court interpreting the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution as well as the Commerce Clause.

As to the latter, to his eternal disgrace as a hypocrite in his later years, Justice Scalia betrayed a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich). His usually good buddy, Justice Thomas, had to write a dissent basically calling out his old buddy as a fraud. Without Scalia's vote the decision still would have been the same (it was 6-3), but at least he would have maintained his credibility.

So why did he sell out? Simple--the case was about weed. He was still living in 1968 and had his own hang-ups about the goddamned hippies and their goddamned pot.

So when some of us mock the rest of you for supporting the tired, played out "war on drugs," we have our reasons. The undermining of the US Constitution (especially the 4th Amendment) in the name of the "war on drugs" predates--and set the table for--subsequent undermining in the "War on Terror." All those shitty precedents, in turn, will be used by the libs now trying to prosecute the "War on Domestic Terror," which is beginning to look like a war on gun owners, traditional conservatives, morally conservative churches, etc. Good job, dumbfucks--you played right into their hands.

We are going to need every one of those 5 non-lib, non-Roberts Supreme Court votes every time.

[Legio]

The Supreme Court is starting to seriously piss me off.

[tector]

The Supreme Court is starting to seriously piss me off.

If our 5 hang tight, we're OK. Roberts is a shitbag chamber-of-commerce "conservative."

[Iosef]

You folks are "counting your chickens before they hatch." This bill will never make it out of committee.

[tector]

You folks are "counting your chickens before they hatch." This bill will never make it out of committee.

Oh, I am counting on nothing from the FL GOP. But these bills are going to spring up everywhere sane (the article mentions one in Missouri). Eventually one will hit the Supremes.

[Miami_JBT]

This is what I would like to see passed.

Does our new GOA rep have any other insight on this.

Such as the internet letter that we can blast their inboxes with?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

We're monitoring it closely and something will be coming out from us soon.