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
One of the intrinsic beauties - and weaknesses - of the English language is that there are at least a thousand ways to express any given thought process.
The Japanese language - by contrast - is quite simple, precise, and is limited to very little "variety" ( if any ) in the of ways one may express thought processes.
Perhaps exhaustive analysis of sundry subjects is a good enterprise. Perhaps too much analysis - and too many words is not.
Hi Jim, what you say resonates with me. Got me thinking about a Communications course I took. It pointed out the importance of duplication with understanding of any language. Also, complexity can render just about anything non-existent, as our Constitution is constantly be being hammered with complexity. Sometimes referred to as a living document I reject that characterization in favor of a static document that keeps us a land of laws...Semper Fi
Exactly Gray. The majority ( 5-4 ) of the U.S. Supreme Court engaged in an exhaustive analysis of the historical record in order to come to the inescapable conclusion that the 2nd Amendment clearly stipulates- that ANY infringement upon the people's right to keep and bear arms by either the federal government ,or the states for that matter " SHALL NOT " occur. Nonetheless,.....that having been said........they then proceeded to interpret the 2nd Amendment as though it actually allowed for a few " compelling interest " exceptions...........and off we go.
Discussion may certainly be instructive, and beneficial towards developing consensus...but eventually ......discussion can begin to distort, and contradict any message.
If you think that you need to fire a warning shot, you should not be on the front line ever. It is about taking back our country from the ones who wants to take our freedoms. I am a vet, never in combat, but would not fire a warning shot. I am here because someone gave his or her life to protect me and my family. I would do no less to protect yours.
Paul I don't know about you, Sean, and AWR, but I can't AFFORD to waste ammunition for a warning shot!
For god sake, Paul, this article and the response written are about the revision to the law indemnifying law abiding persons who do in their own home. And yes, there are times when it might be prudent to do so. If you feel the need to indiscriminately fire away, I would say maybe you should not be on the front lines either. Judgment is something learned through experience and is necessary on the "front line" as it was put.
If you haven't been, don't assume to know, and rather than running into a conversation full blown, how bout reading the content, absorbing it and understanding it before attacking and playing billy badass. I would not put a person that hasn't the capability to know what PID is, on the front line, with any of my troops.
If the article is about people coming to my home and trying to take my weapons from me, they will not even get thru the door. I am will not let anyone take my weapons because the government says I can not have them. This is one right that will not fall, and I hope everyone who reads this post will agree. This is all about the rights that we as free citizens have in this country.
I just re-read what you were talking about, and I can see your point, but again I would not fire a warning shot and the people who want to harm me better know that too.
Thank you. It's all cool bro, like I was saying, warning shots may not always be the best option. But the law as it stands, could get you convicted even if you missed... in this case the woman admitted to firing a warning shot, it had the desired effect and she faced 10 to life for it. For protecting herself... so this would get rid of that, if... you can prove intent of the attacker... of course it is easier, if the attacker is still on your living room floor when the cops or sheriff get there.
Yes is ok with me too.
They won't wait either, it is about our rights and freedom that we have that they want to take away.
I think that all the people here that reads this post needs to ask their law official's if they believe the same thing and then post their city on this site.