The answer to the above question may soon be apparent. Starting even before the Obama/Biden “plan” to reduce “gun violence,” was announced Wednesday, several states have been scrambling to protect their people from the proposed oppressive new gun laws, and even imprison federal law enforcement officers who try to enforce those oppressions. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence executive director Josh Horwitz is not going to like this.
The Tenth Amendment Center is tracking the progress of these “Second Amendment Preservation Act” bills, currently listing eight states, just within the last couple weeks, that have introduced them. So far, the states are North Dakota, Wyoming, Arizona,Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, and here in Missouri. (much to the shrieking dismay of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial staff). Mississippi is poised to join those states, as well.
The Second Amendment Protection Act legislation is not to be confused with the somewhat similar “Firearms Freedom Act” legislation, which has itself been introduced in five states just this month, but in previous years has actually become law (albeit law angrily contested by the federal government) in several. The main difference between the two is that the Firearms Freedom Act affects only firearms, ammunition, etc., manufactured and kept within the state, and thus not part of interstate commerce (because the interstate commerce clause is the federal government’s only Constitutionally justified hook into gun regulation–even without the Second Amendment–and brutal abuse of that clause underpins every federal gun law).
The Second Amendment Preservation Act, on the other hand, is somewhat more ambitious, in that it makes no distinction regarding where the “regime change rifles,” “high capacity” magazines, etc. came from, since, obviously, the Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when those arms have been part of interstate commerce.
It is not only states daring to defy the federal government’s forcible citizen disarmament agenda–at least one sheriff has vowed to protect the citizens of his Kentucky county from the scourge of “gun control.”
Do the states (and at least one county–Update: make that at least two counties) have much hope of backing the feds down? That might seem unlikely, given this regime’s passion for disarming the citizenry. On the other hand, Obama recently announced the enforcing federal marijuana prohibition laws in states that have decided to defy them is not a “top priority,” because the Obama government has “bigger fish to fry.”
Granted, it would seem that American gun owners are now his “bigger fish,” but if we resolve to betoo big–and too dangerous–to “fry,” he might just decide to give up trying to put citizens’ rights on his stringer. Or perhaps he’ll discover too late that he needs a bigger boat.