The Florida legislature will consider a bill that would prohibit any state agency from cooperating with enforcement of any federal gun laws – past, present or future.
Rep. Dan Eagle (R-Cape Coral) introduced HB733 on Monday. The Second Amendment Preservation Act declares that no agent of the state or its political subdivisions may participate with or assist federal agents in the enforcement of federal firearms laws, or provide material support of any kind to federal agents in the enforcement of these laws. State agents and/or contractors who knowingly participate in or provide support for the enforcement of federal firearms laws would be subject to dismissal.
“The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly provides that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Time and time again, Florida has proven that we have the best solutions to our own issues, whether it be healthcare, education, or our balanced budget, which is accomplished without raising taxes. When it comes to protecting our fundamental Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I believe it is best left to be handled by Floridians for Floridians,” Eagle said.
The legislation would not attempt to stop federal agents from enforcing gun laws, but would pull the plug on any state cooperation, leaving enforcement in the hands of a federal government incapable of enforcing its laws.
Florida Tenth Amendment Center outreach director Francisco Rodriguez said the proposed act would make it very difficult for the federal government to enforce its gun laws.
“The federal government relies on state and local assistance for almost everything. One source I read indicated that state or local police assist in seven out of every 10 ATF raids. That’s a lot of help that will disappear in the blink of an eye,” he said. “Now imagine if 20 or 30 states followed suit. It would make it virtually impossible for the feds to violate the Second Amendment.”
Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.” That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs” including those which impose upon the right to keep and bear arms.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Anticipating the anti-commandeering doctrine, Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method of resistance.
Judge Andrew Napolitano last year urged states to introduce and pass this type of legislation specifically, saying that a single state passing such a law would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”
The bill 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 a federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
Montana sheriff Jay Printz and Arizona sheriff Richard Mack sued the federal government over provisions in the 1993 Brady Gun Bill that required chief law enforcement officers in each county to administer background checks. The Supreme Court majority held the feds could not force compliance by state officers.
“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.”
Mack has since called working at the state and local level the key to fighting tyranny.
Florida Tenth Amendment Center state coordinator Andrew Nappi said Rep. Eagle first became interested in this bill almost a year ago and called to discuss the model legislation.
“The timing last year just could not be worked out. But Representative Eagle said he would not forget about this bill and he didn’t. He remained true to his word, and we began working with him on this last fall,” Nappi said. “This is a substantial attempt to push back against federal actions violating the Second Amendment. Representative Eagle has not only kept his word by sponsoring the bill this year, he set an example for others who say they support the Second Amendment, but stop short of taking action.”
Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate a Senate version of the bill will likely be introduced in the coming weeks.
In Florida, take action to support HB733 HERE
All other states, take action to get your state on board, and protect the 2nd Amendment HERE
I really enjoy reading your thoughts on this. I already agreed with you that we cannot put aside our faith in order to get a larger number here.
In chat one evening one of our younger members pointed out he is reading so much of people praying for this movement and wanted to know if this was just for religious people since he as an atheist. I pointed him to the fact that our Consititution is what it's all about and that it was written primarily by believers, but it was a preacher delegate that insisted the establishment clause be included so that he could not be forced to believe. That when it seemed the delegates couldn't agree on a Constitution, Gen Washington sent the one atheist delegate on a special errand and the entire rest of the group spent the day in prayer. By the time the lone atheist returned God had led them to a document that even he could agree to.
I pointed out to this young man that he definitely was invited to take part, but since this is more a battle of good and evil, (a spiritual battle) I wanted to have permission ot pray for his protection and wisdom in the entire movement because even if he didn't believe in God, God both knew and believed in him. He agreed to permit me to do so and we became good friends despite not having the same beliefs.
This is probably one more reason, a chat is important to the movement. It helps us to work together past our differences and work to build lasting friendships which will be important in the coming months and no doubt years. Even more important though the need to pray for one another. I've been reiminding each person spoken to, that in the darkness of DC, to have a prayer partner back home to intercede for them is a very important point.
Absolutely Yinzer ...I could not have put it any better......I think that we all know that we are currently under a dictatorship.. I personally will not stand for it..But it appears that those like JOHN BOEHNER and the rest of the RINOS do not have the guts to stand up and tell him that he is all done and that from now on we will abide by the constitution..Barrack Obama in plain english thginks that he is a king..Bear in mind that whenever anyone stands up to him out comes the RACE CARD..He is lawless and people like John Boehner are the reason..Boehner is all Obama all the time..He is not fooling anyone..
Harry--why are we even talking about this issue? This is a distraction from the real issue. I offer for consideration, the position that ALL gun laws are self-nullifying since they are 'repugnant to the Constitution', ipso facto (in a Constitutional America) they are unenforceable. Further, I believe the really critical step missing in drafting EVERY law, is the determination of its Constitutionality. Why should we be forced to bear the costs of enforcing, prosecuting, defending, and illegally imprisoning or otherwise penalizing citizens for 'violating' one of a mountain of un-Constitutional, unenforceable laws?
What we should be discussing is the appropriate punishment for any legislator who has the temerity to push through a law that fails the Constitutionality acid test, to a vote. They should be charged with willful Violation of Oath of Office, Gross Neglect of Duties, Malfeasance in Office, and Treason against the State, not to mention Littering the Judiciary with Wasteful Paperwork. (I know those things may not be actual crimes, but they should be!)
In the case of the 2nd Amendment the high powers whom we have elected to administer the federal government have essentially adhered to a consensus that the U.S. Constitution is WRONG on this one - just as it is on nearly everything else - and they will proceed in what they regard as the best interest of the American people irregardless of what the supreme law of the land stipulates.
"Where are the parents ...of these delinquents ? " Look in the mirror.
I too love this idea, and it certainly seems it could spread across the country if we encourage/ instruct our state congressmen and senators to adopt similar legislation. Two questions though: Could we use the same tactic for ALL unwanted/illegal federal programs? And I wonder if the administration anticipated this strategy, and this is the reason for the recent and unprecedented arming of agents of many federal agencies? If so, does this mean that the administration is set on enforcing illegal and unconstitutional mandates/laws with or without state participation? If the answer to this is yes, I believe there will be confrontation as the states move from simply refusing to participate in enforcement, to actively resisting federal enforcement within a given state. I guess I'm saying that our state government officials need to be called, written and emailed by all of us, and told in no uncertain terms, to show NO fear in drafting or sponsoring any such 10th amendment type acts, decrees and laws, because we citizens will stand (and vote) with them in any showdown with the federal government. Our state officials must be assured repeatedly that we are not only willing but even anxious to perform our duties as the "well armed militia" described in our constitution, and that we will fight with them to preserve our country our constitution, and our freedom.