Nationalist and States' Rights Position on Gun Control

University
STATES’ RIGHTS
A Paper
Submitted to (Name of Professor)
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Course
(Course)
By
(Name of Student)
(Date)
STATES’ RIGHTS
States’ rights are strategies and doctrines that protect the rights of the individual states from federal government interference. Under the guidance of the Constitution, states have significant sovereignty to enforce, pass as well as interpret the laws and pursue individual public policy programs.
Gun control is a major topic that has received massive attention regarding whether the state or the federal should control firearms. People particularly the gun right supporters do not want gun controls to be made into federal law. People say that gun controls should never be regulated by the federal government, because they already have too much power.
The article on gun rights illuminates on how people feel about federal government’s authority over guns in the state. The states’ rights advocates say that the federal government is getting into an area that they are not supposed to engage and their scope of power with this issue is limited. There’s a lot of opposition, and some people say that even if the federal government insists on enforcing the firearms laws, they will not offer assistance. The Federal government say that they should be in charge because the issue has so much to do with the 2nd amendment. To date, the two have not reached a consensus but voting is an action to be taken so as to determine who regulates the issue.
List of references
Edelson, Daniel. 2014. United States Law: An introduction for international students. USA: Daniel Edelson.
Epstein, Richard. 2013. "Ricochet." Gun regukation, the states and the second Amendment: Making sense of our twisted constitutional history. February 1. https://ricochet.com/archives/gun-regulation-the-states-and-the-second-amendment-making-sense-of-our-twisted-constitutional-history/.
Justine, Robby, and Jessica. 2014. "LowaWatch." Gun Rights Supporters rely on individual states to overcome federal controls. August 27. http://iowawatch.org/2014/08/27/gun-rights-supporters-go-to-individual-states-to-overcome-federal-controls/.
(COPY PASTED ARTICLES)
1st article
Link to the Gun control article:  HYPERLINK "http://iowawatch.org/2014/08/27/gun-rights-supporters-go-to-individual-states-to-overcome-federal-controls/" http://iowawatch.org/2014/08/27/gun-rights-supporters-go-to-individual-states-to-overcome-federal-controls/
Across the country, a thriving dissatisfaction with the U.S. government is prompting a growing spate of bills in state legislatures aimed at defying federal control over firearms - more than 200 during the last decade, a News21 investigation found.
Particularly in Western and Southern states, where individual liberty intersects with increasing skepticism among gun owners, firearms are a political vehicle in efforts to ensure states’ rights and void U.S. gun laws within their borders. State legislators are attempting to declare that only they have the right to interpret the Second Amendment, a movement that recalls the anti-federal spirit of the Civil War and civil-rights eras.
 HYPERLINK "http://iowawatch.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/08/News21-logo4.png" 
“I think the president and the majority of Congress, both in the House and Senate, are just completely out of touch with how people feel about Second Amendment rights,” said Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves, who has fought for bills to weaken the federal government’s authority over firearms in his state.
In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010.
A News21 analysis shows 14 such bills were passed by legislators in 11 states, mainly in Western states, along with Kansas, Tennessee and Alaska. Of those, 11 were signed into law, though one was later struck down in court. In Montana, Missouri and Oklahoma, three others were vetoed.
More than three-quarters of U.S. states have proposed nullification laws since 2008. More than half of those bills have come in the last two years after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. All but three have been introduced since President Barack Obama took office.
Underneath the policy jargon lies a culture of firearms woven into the heritage and politics of states whose histories were shaped by guns.
“(The federal government) is diving off into areas unchecked that they’re not supposed to be involved in,” said Montana state Rep. Krayton Kerns, who introduced a bill in 2013 to limit the ability of local police to help enforce federal laws. “Not only is it our right in state legislatures to do this, it’s our obligation to do it. Somebody’s got to put a 'whoa' on it.”
Opponents say it’s not federal gun regulation that’s unconstitutional, but laws to nullify it.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit against Kansas on July 9 to stop enforcement of the state’s recently passed Second Amendment Protection Act.
“The law should not be called the Second Amendment Protection Act, it should be called the Gun Violence Preservation Act,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the center’s Legal Action Project.
Two types of bills are the primary vehicles for the movement, both based on model legislation introduced in statehouses from Tallahassee to Juneau.
The first type holds that federal laws do not apply to firearms manufactured and sold within a given state, relying on the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. It says Congress can regulate trade between states, but says nothing about trade within states.
Under Utah law, for example, guns made, purchased and used in the state are exempt from federal laws. Commonly known as the Firearms Freedom Act, versions of the law have been debated during 78 legislative sessions across 37 states in the last decade.
The other approach says gun regulation falls outside the scope of the federal government’s power, making it state territory. Such bills, often known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, usually say state officials cannot enforce federal gun laws or limit the ability to do so, and some bills have tried to impose penalties on officers who help federal officials.
“It's basically saying, ‘Federal government, if you want to enforce federal firearms laws in the state of Arizona, you're welcome to do it, but we won't give you any assistance. So in other words, no state police help with (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) raids, no local law enforcement enforcing a federal gun law, none of that,” said Mike Maharrey, national communications director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a for-profit nullification group based in California.
This report is part of the project titled  HYPERLINK "http://gunwars.news21.com/" \t "_blank" “Gun Wars: The Struggle Over Rights and Regulation in America,” produced by the Carnegie-Knight News21 initiative, a national investigative reporting project involving top college journalism students across the country and headquartered at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. For the complete project “GUN WARS: The Struggle Over Rights and Regulation in America,” visit  HYPERLINK "http://gunwars.news21.com" \t "_blank" http://gunwars.news21.com
 HYPERLINK "http://iowawatch.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/08/IowaInsert.jpg" 
The Kansas law makes it a felony for federal officials to enforce U.S. firearm law.
The Brady Center suit against the Sunflower State indicates that some are beginning to view nullification as a threat.
“This is a matter both of constitutional law and common sense,” said Stuart Plunkett, a Brady Center attorney in that case. “Our system of laws would break down if each of the 50 states could offer its own interpretation of congressional authority over interstate commerce.”
But the bill’s sponsor and co-author, Republican Rep. John Rubin, said he believes it’s the Brady Center that errs in interpretation of government authority regarding intrastate commerce. Rubin, who spent much of his professional career as a government lawyer and in administrative law thinks U.S. government overreach is the problem.
“The founders never envisioned … that a modern federal government would construe the commerce clause so broadly as to enable the federal government to regulate every aspect of the lives of the states,” Rubin said.
The Tenth Amendment Center responded to the Brady Center suit with a pledge to ramp up its campaign to pass Second Amendment Preservation Acts in more states in 2015.
 HYPERLINK "http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&ga=85&hbill=SJR7" LINK: 2013 Iowa bill
“To us, this is a BIG green light to push harder than ever to protect the 2nd Amendment through state level resistance to federal gun-control measures,” Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin wrote in a July 9 statement.
In Kentucky, Rep. Diane St. Onge has already introduced a nullification bill for the 2015 session. Although she’s sure a court challenge will come from the federal government if the bill is passed, she believes it will hold up.
“We’re making a statement here about what we hold true, what we believe in here in Kentucky,” St. Onge said.
The federal government has said little on the matter, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder rebuked Kansas for its law in April.
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, (Kansas’ law) directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Holder wrote in a letter to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback.
The measures often fizzle, even in conservative states. The National Rifle Association doesn’t support nullifying federal gun laws because that could undo NRA legislative success in Washington.
“I think that is a misguided distraction,” said Todd Rathner, an NRA board member from Arizona. “I empathize with what they’re trying to accomplish, but I am not convinced it’s the right way to do it.”
In Montana, where the largely rural population is spread out over nearly 150,000 square miles of mountains, fields and valleys, one man has been pushing these bills since 2005.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has written scores of gun bills that have been introduced since 1985 in the Montana statehouse, 64 of which have become law.
 HYPERLINK "http://iowawatch.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/08/MT_Marbut_01.jpg" 

Jessica Boehm/News21
Gary Marbut wrote the nation's first “Firearms Freedom Act,” which challenged the federal government’s authority over firearms made and kept in Montana. A federal court overturned the law.
Marbut lives on his family’s old ranch, in a secluded geodesic dome near Missoula. A self-appointed guardian of state gun rights, he has failed in three bids for a seat in the Montana Legislature, but succeeded in starting a movement to weaken federal authority of guns across the country.
Marbut, who is running for state representative in 2014, didn’t expect other states to take up the cause. When it comes to the gun bills that challenge federal law, Marbut’s focus on guns seems almost incid...