In Which Tom Knighton (Bearing Arms) And I Disagree
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 10 months ago
Tom Knighton writing at Bearing Arms.
However, there are a couple of other bills that, if they pass, will put them squarely at odds with the federal government.
Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 7 would both create the Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act. This act would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal law, or other legislation, regarding the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo.
The bills would also set up penalties for whatever agency violates the proposed bill. The penalty for a first offense is a class C misdemeanor with a fine no less than $500 or more than $5,000. For all other offenses, it is a class B misdemeanor with a fine no less than $1,000 or more than $7,000.
In other words, it’ll be much like Missouri’s law that went into effect earlier this year.
That law hasn’t really been tested in the courts yet, so we don’t know how that will go, so Alabama following suit may or may not be a great move for them.
However, there’s another bill that may cause far more problems.
A different bill, House Bill 13, would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal bill or other legislation pertaining to the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo, just like Senate Bill 2. However, this only pertains to those made and sold in Alabama.
Under existing constitution law, Congress is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation.
Now, on the surface, this looks great for Alabama and I happen to agree with the reasoning behind this bill.
That said, Kansas passed a bill like this a while back. There are now people in prison because they figured the law would protect them, but the courts disagreed.
Alabama is free to pass the bill, of course, but if you live there and think that once it does, you can go out and build yourself a machinegun, well, I have some very bad news for you.
It should be noted that the prosecutions in Kansas have been upheld by the courts, so there’s no reason to believe Alabama residents would have any better luck.
Frankly, this is a bill that probably shouldn’t be passed. Yes, it’s pro-gun and yes, I agree with the reasoning and thinking behind it. However, there are people who will think this gives them license to do things that it really can’t. It’ll hurt good, decent people who simply don’t realize they’re doing anything wrong.
That doesn’t benefit anyone, I’m afraid, so it’s probably for the best if this doesn’t actually get passed.
I think Tom gets this wrong on every account, and this certainly isn’t the first or twentieth time I’ve disagreed with the folks at Bearing Arms, and it won’t be the last.
To begin with, yes Alabama should pass both of these bills and they should be signed by the governor. First and foremost should be the constitutional carry bill, but if they get this far, they should pass the balance of the pro-2A bills as well.
But then Kansas passed such a law and people are in jail because of it, right? Well, not so fast. We covered it. Kansas passed a 2A sanctuary law and I covered it. It was more of a nullification law, and had the express purpose of allowing the purchase of NFA items without seeking approval of the controllers inside the beltway. I said at the time that unless the governor was willing to send state and county police to arrest and imprison FedGov agents who attempted to make arrests in Kansas for said actions, it was weak tea and not really a nullification law. Even the sponsor of the bill said that it mostly symbolic.
The Alabama bill seems a bit different, focusing on whether agents of the state can participate with FedGov agents in making such arrests. They are taking incremental steps. Some state is eventually going to have to broach this issue sooner or later, but until a governor is willing to battle FedGov agents, we’re left with what we’ve got.
I see the last sentence of the paragraph … “This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation” … is the tricky part. I wouldn’t test that part of the bill, if indeed it has that proviso. As for prohibiting agents of the state from aiding the enforcement of any new federal laws, Alabama can certainly do that, and Missouri has thus far been quite successful thus far in preventing cooperation with the FedGov, which is a good thing. Finally, if this portends to be a weak nullification law, I see it as possibly targeting FedGov control over things like semi-automatics and AR-15s as anything else.
As for the Missouri law not being tested in court, I seriously doubt that the word of a federal court will stand as the law if the governor of the state makes it clear that the state law will be enforced, and that agents of the state who aid the FedGov will indeed lose their ability to work in law enforcement ever again.
That’s the whole point. There are certain things a state can do regardless of what a federal court says. This is one of them.
Alabama should pass both bills, but only after focusing first on a constitutional carry bill.
On December 28, 2021 at 11:48 pm, Dan said:
Unless and until a state passes laws that REQUIRE state/local LEO to arrest, charge and try ANYONE including Federal law enforcement for attempting to enforce unconstitutional laws ALL of these touch feely warm and fuzzy “nullification” laws are a waste of time and energy.
On December 29, 2021 at 5:04 am, Joe Blow said:
I agree with both author and commenter.
The federal vs state debate over legislation is huge (who supercedes whom)? To get State Legislatures to pass laws approaching the topic from our side is a good thing (weak tea or not, its still tea, whereas bwfore we didn’t even have hot water!)
Enforcement is the lynch pin. The firat State to try it will lose all federal dollars. Think even DeSantis will do that? Thus the crux of the problem….
The money controls everything.
On December 29, 2021 at 8:56 am, Bill Buppert said:
The ultimate nullification is secession.
On December 29, 2021 at 9:23 am, Kick Ass said:
The bill isn’t the problem; the cunts in DC are the problem.
It’s amazing how much totalitarianism a free people will tolerate.
On December 29, 2021 at 10:23 am, Frank Clarke said:
Ask the wrong question; get the wrong answer.
Under Congress’ article I section 8 power to ‘regulate commerce among the states’ the implication was that Congress would facilitate commerce rather than micromanage it. This was the primary impetus behind FDR’s threat to pack the Supreme Court with additional judges who would see things his way: FDR wanted more power than the interstate commerce (hereafter IC) clause allowed because his vision was of a larger, more powerful central government that could mold the economy in ways that would dispel the economic depression of the 30s and 40s. He got his needed reinterpretation and today almost everything Congress does is justified under those expanded IC powers. That new interpretation is so expansive that the Gun Free School Zones Act was cast as justified by the IC clause because it claimed to protect future consumers in IC!
In fact, although article I section 8 grants power to Congress in only 17 specific areas, this new interpretation of the IC clause is so broad that it can truly be said that article I section 8 now grants power in 16 specific areas and one other which is ‘anything else Congress wants’.
Virtually everything we see as ‘wrong’ with the federal government today arises from that faulty interpretation: we are supposed to be living in The Free Trade Zone Of The United States but are instead saddled with rules that require (just as one example) special certification for over-the-road long haul drivers who operate in more than one state — and those rules cost money. In the one recent case where Congress should have been using its original powers to prevent damage to the consumer, they conspired with a state to promote it. Before 1974, if you wanted to fly to Dallas, you landed at Love Field (DAL), 5 miles NW of downtown. When DFW was proposed as Dallas’ new airport, Texas asked for and Congress agreed to limit the use of Love Field in order to promote DFW (and American Airlines). As a result, as soon as DFW was operational, the FAA no longer accepted flight plans for Love Field to or from airports outside Texas. You could then fly DAL-Abilene-Seattle, or DAL-ElPaso-Hawaii, or DAL-Houston-Paris, but you could not fly non-stop to any of those destinations unless you flew from DFW. The 40-year agreement expired in 2014 having cost Southwest Airlines 40 years of business out of Love Field and funneling most of that business to America Airlines which, for all intents and purposes, owns DFW.
Because of Congress’ new-found power over the economy, corporations whatever their size and, in fact, entire industries are at the mercy of Congress which now wields the power of life and death over them. Is it any wonder Washington DC is awash in corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions? People who complain about the corrupting influence of corporate money over politics are complaining of the wrong thing. They should be complaining about the corrupting influence of the incorrectly-interpreted IC clause.
On December 29, 2021 at 10:25 am, Fred said:
“However, there are people who will think this gives them license to do things that it really can’t.”
So you, because you are stupid and part of the ignorant masses, must kept in servitude for your own good. You’re just too stupid to handle freedom. I, Tom Knighton, one of the oh so smart and special people gifted to know things that you stupid people can’t, has spoken.
On December 29, 2021 at 12:09 pm, billrla said:
I stopped following “Bearing Arms,” as I find it too annoying.
On December 29, 2021 at 1:25 pm, Silence DoGood said:
The “not subject to federal law or regulation” bit probably is a nod to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which seven other states to date have passed their own version of. With the exception of the Montana state legislator who wanted to build and sell the old Remington 67A .22LR bolt gun as the juvenile-sized “Montana Buckaroo,” I don’t think Montana or any of the other seven states intend blowing raspberries at the BATFE any time soon, I think they’re preparing for a perfect future when the time is right to contest the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendment conflicts with the NFA, the GCA & the Hayes Amendment, and they believe that having state law that directly conflicts with those federal statutes will give them standing in the case when a suitable time comes to bring this before SCOTUS.
On December 29, 2021 at 8:49 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
Also note that Kansas has a Democrat as governor…
On December 30, 2021 at 7:05 am, m. fuah said:
only chicom-dicksuckers support gun control
On January 1, 2022 at 9:46 am, Fred said:
I sure do hope Herschel is ok. It’s not like him to miss a new years post. I recon we should pray for him.
On January 2, 2022 at 10:35 am, Ohio Guy said:
@Fred, I’m sure he’s enjoying the new year break with friends and family. I, too await his new years postings…Instead, pray he continues to post good, educational topics that promote stimulating discussion. OG