Free Thought Project: Bill Would Bar State Enforcement of Fed. Red-Flag Gun Laws

A Senate bill has been filed in the Oklahoma Senate which would prohibit that state from enforcing any federal “red-flag” laws. The so-called “red-flag” gun laws are widely seen as unconstitutional. Current trends toward both immigration sanctuaries and Second Amendment sanctuaries harken back to the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s. The summary below comes from the Free Thought Project.

Landmark Bill Would Bar State from Enforcing Federal Red-Flag Gun Laws

A bill prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate would prohibit state enforcement of any federal “red-flag” laws, setting the foundation to nullify any such laws in practice and effect.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) filed Senate Bill 1081 (SB1081) for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. Under the proposed law, the Oklahoma legislature would “occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way federal or state extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “ In effect, only the Oklahoma legislature could pass any type of so-called red-flag law effective in the Sooner State.

The legislation also would declare that any federal red-flag law “which would infringe upon a citizen’s Constitutionally-protected rights including, but not limited to the right to due process, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, shall be null, void, unenforceable and of no effect in the state of Oklahoma.”

These declarations would have very little effect in practice, but SB1081 includes provisions that would make federal red-flag laws nearly impossible to enforce in Oklahoma. The proposed law would prohibit any  Oklahoma agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma.

It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing a federal red-flag law.

EFFECTIVE

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. 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.”

Enforcing a red-flag law would be no different.

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 refusing to cooperate with federal gun control 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 the implementation and enforcement of a federal red flag law, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

LEGAL BASIS

The state of Missouri 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”

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1081 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the Oklahoma legislature convenes on Feb. 2.

Raconteur Report: Government Involved in Johnson & Johnson Case Deserve Lynching

Aesop over at the Raconteur Report has some very strong opinions on the recent Johnson & Johnson suit in which plaintiffs were awarded $572 million in damages because people in the state of Oklahoma overdosed on opiates. While his words may be extreme, he has a valid point that this is not rule of law; this is perversion of the law that should not be allowed to happen. This is the issue that is causing people on the right and the left and the middle to become irate, even if they don’t always realize the cause — this is government run amok.

J&J Is Getting Railroaded by Morons and Why You Care

If you were paying close attention yesterday, you might have heard that some inbred robed fuckwit (and his mental incapacity and jurisprudential shortcomings with that appellation should be considered an extremely light sentence) yesterday awarded plaintiffs against Johnson & Johnson some $572M in damages (out of the $17Billion they asked for), due to opiate overdose deaths in the state of OK.

TL;DR:
This is childish magical thinking and judicial bulls#@t that should get the judge impeached, disbarred, and stoned at the city gates immediately..

…So, in short, OK  went looking for someone wholly uninvolved, with deep pockets.And found a judge with an IQ on a par with potted plants (but let’s be fair, judges come from lawyers, and the morons don’t fall far from the tree there), who looked at the contrary facts and legal doctrine, and decided none of that mattered, then spun his Magic 8-Ball and concluded half a billion dollars of shakedown cash sounded like a good round number…

Blaming the makers of a legal product, in an excruciatingly highly-regulated trade, for the misdeeds of others using completely different items, whose only similarity is a chemical class, is simply utter horseshit. Such jurisprudence is the hallmark of mental retardation and absolute professional incapacity...

This case is the equivalent of a judge finding Oneida culpable for forks causing obesity. It’s finding Ticonderoga pencils responsible for causing mistakes on SATs. And if I haven’t made the point blisteringly clear yet,
It’s finding Colt, Winchester, Remington, and Ruger guilty for murders and robberies…

 

Aesop follows up with an article Fiat Anarchy.

…J&J isn’t the issue here, A.B.

The issue is fiat anarchy under color of authority.

Setting the precedent that uninvolved innocent parties can be rounded up, sued, and financially ruined for the unrelated actions of evil people using not-their-product, as if apples were elephants and horseflies were horses, because the defendants happen to be minding their own business legally and above board, undoes all trade and commerce in anything, in about a minute.

That’s a civilizational death sentence…