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
if soros paid to bus in illegals that would have been a good time for the police to arrest them and ship them back to wherever they came from
Keep putting it out until you do get the signatures. I had no idea there was anything like this and am not the only one. Every day more of us are coming visiting sites like this who were unaware anyone had anything like this going. There are thousands of us who are current vets, Militia and Contractors overseas that never get the message. Beauty of it is, we have the means to support, just need solid people with good coordination to get it started back at home.
While I think state nullification is a start, it is not enough. The last time it hit levels like it is now, was in he 1860's and you know what that entailed. I'm all for whatever it takes to get our Constitution back to the position it needs to be and especially for making sure those that violate their oath of office are not only impeached, but tried and convicted.
To all interested people: If you'd like to read the Florida HB733 2nd Amendment Preservation Bill:
But--if a bill or law infringing upon our Constitutionally-Guaranteed, God-given rights is self-nullifying, why do we need a law to nullify it? If a law is already null and void, and we nullify it, does that give it even more credibility that it never had in the first place? Why can't we just do what the Framers intended, and ignore it? And if a legislator even submits a bill that infringes our rights, why shouldn't we prosecute him/her for violating Oath of Office?
That is exactly the point. The founders understood it but I blame our lack of knowledge of the Constitution on our education system. Only now has it become so bad that we recognize how terrible our schools are, unfortunately, most in our generation were already effected. But that doesn't mean it isn't correctable.
As you stated, why should we need a law to nullify an unconstitutional law... answer, quite simply is... we do not. I bring you to the 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sec 256:
"Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is the defacto law of the land, and a contract between the federal and state government and it's people.
From a historic common law and legal standpoint, as a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by ANY AND ALL judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal  or state,  though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law,  but is wholly void,  and ineffective for any purpose;  since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it,  an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.  No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. 
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,  confers no rights,  creates no office,  bestows no power or authority on anyone,  affords no protection,  and justifies no acts performed under it.  A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. 
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law  and no courts are bound to enforce it.  Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. 
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one.  And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.  Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one,  if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect.  And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. 
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States.  Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. 
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. 
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification.""
This data was copied from the following page: http://voices.yahoo.com/us-constitution-as-written-defacto-law-land...
Wow! Thank you, Sean. You gave me the ammunition I need to go to my State Senator and Representative and I really appreciate it. Of course, if logic and facts prevailed, our conversation would be never have happened, but I'm glad we met.
All things for a reason, sir. Glad to help and even more appreciative of everyone's efforts to restore the freedoms we are supposed to be fighting for over here.
One point, Sean: "...a contract between the federal and state government and it's people." I beg to differ; the Constitution is compact among the people (state/federal) which, along with other things, provides for the formation of a Government under certain specific restrictions and conditions.
A government cannot sign a contract any more than any other inanimate object could. Just as an agreement cannot be made to encumber those not yet born.
I know the point is a quote and not yours, but it is something that should be understood.
What do you think?
Agreed, and was noted when I Bing'd this page. There are a few better sources out there but the ISP we use here kept blocking the legal sites. On thing to note that the term Compact and Contract are virtually synonymous as was used in those days. Blacks Law Dictionary, which was used widely at the time, defines much of the terminology used throughout the Constitution, Dec. of Independence and even Federalist Papers. But a compact (as it were) held much more weight then than it does now. Of course we know from history how governments loved to break compacts even then, at their whim. It remains in the hands of the people to take charge of their destiny.
What is the important take away is that even in the 1962 edition, the SCOTUS recognized, thus reinforcing, precedence that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. and all laws contrary are null and void from date of enactment.
When speaking to people on issues like the 2nd amendment, I like to use the 1970's issue regarding the FCC's push to license CB radios. It was refused and fought... and though a very easy form of commo to monitor, still remains unregulated, unlike other transmittal formats.
If all Gun owners were to simply not comply, regardless of state or federal push... imagine the fallout.
Okay, Sean, one more point and I believe we will have solved all the world's problems: Is it safe to assume the 'government' cannot do anything--all actions require a human, namely, an authority, an official, or bureaucrat (I prefer 'bureaucrat' because every time I use it, I also get to say 'rat'). Now, if a bureaucrat does anything outside his/her authority, that act cannot be legal, therefore will not constitute a liability or obligation on the People, right? Then why all the fuss about gun control laws? Or any other un- or extra-Constitutional legislation, rules, regulations, or policies. If we, en masse, refuse to comply, what can the bureaucracy do?
Ha ha, I like where you take this dialogue, Terry. Let me start by offering a bottle of Scotch and some fine CAO cigars on my deck to finish this discussion, in April... that being said, I believe you know the answer to your query, but do our readers?
First, to your questions... You are correct in part one- it does not constitute a liability upon the part of the people to comply with an unlawful or unconstitutional statute. Why all the fuss? Because people are (as I will point out in a minute) scared by the government. Our political body has surrounded itself with an unconstitutional national policing force which is no different than a standing army, but bears no responsibility for fighting our enemies and certainly does nothing to control the flow of illegals coming across our border. DHS, Department of Homeland Siege, is nothing more than a paramilitary force derived in a fashion which mimics that of the NAZI party in the 1930's. Hitler had Himmler, Obama has Napolitano. But I challenge that these misguided individuals are no better than any other sheep out there who have no idea of what their Constitutional Rights are.
So, to tie that last question to your 3rd... what can the bureaucracy do? Well, simply they have two options. 1. They could listen and recant their acts against our rights, accept the fact that murders will always happen regardless of the tool, and realize that it is an armed society, acting responsibly, creating deterrence to crime and tyranny (wouldn't that be a revelation). 2. They can continue to push their agenda which will likely lead more push back from We the People, which, in turn will lead "them" to reciprocate in kind. As many would assume will be the likely avenue in this battle for individual liberties... those we have entrusted to continue to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, will force their will upon the people through use of force. This option has been seen before, in Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge Idaho. Call these examples what you will, but I for one, taking all circumstances and evidence into consideration, am still aghast that our government feels that efforts such as these are EVER justified. Effects such as these lead me only to believe that those in government that feel acting out in this manner is somehow justified, only proves how manipulative and wrong they truly are. If the political body we entrust to carry out those duties prescribed by the Constitution, fail to observe their duties then we owe to our future generations to follow in kind: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies"
When those we elect to office, have overstepped their bounds or have acted in a manner which violates the very tenants of our Constitution, most people simply comply rather than "buck the system". It is far easier to suffer certain "evils" while those evils are still sufferable, that to rather fight them, before they turn into something much larger. I like to call this effect "Sleeping Sheep- Encroaching Drama". There are many factors that lead to this disorder.
Terry, I apologize for being long winded. I would love to continue our diatribe at length... unfortunately, I need to go for now and catch a chopper to the south, but I hope this reinforces what you were stating/leading into.
From Kabul Afghanistan... Stay Frosty.
Sorry, that was very insensitive of me. Frosty is not something anyone north of Tallahassee has an issue doing right now. Sorry sorry sorry, 'merika.
Sean, our hearts are linked--your last paragraph hit me hard (nam 68-69).
I'll say no more on that subject. We can have that conversation when you come home in April.
You're right about me knowing the answer. But sometimes the question begs to be asked. To have validation in my conclusions is reassuring in that there are at least two of us suffering from the same psychosis.
To realize how tenuous our would-be oppressor’s grip is on us, gives me two thoughts: first, how pathetically weak they are against the true strength and power of the people; and, how crucial it is for us to take swift, decisive action to bring their ‘soft tyranny’ to a decisive end, before too many of us succumb to their deceptions.
As you quoted: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”, (my favorite part of the Constitution), the time is upon us. Col Riley is showing us the way.
Your replies give me certitude there are more than enough of us to succeed in our mission. (‘One man with courage is a majority.’)
Your points on fear, complacency, and finances are accurate. But those who respond to this call to duty with such impotent excuses are better left behind. They will be but an impediment to our progress. Thank you for patience and most importantly, your service. God is with you.