Letter: La. gun bill a waste of time

A prefiled bill sponsored by three Baton Rouge area lawmakers would make it illegal for federal authorities to enforce any future ban on semiautomatic firearms. The Louisiana Preservation of Individual Gun Rights of Citizens Act would not only declare any “federal law, rule, regulation or executive order” that bans or restricts the ownership of a semiautomatic firearm, magazine, accessory to be unenforceable in Louisiana, it would impose fines or jail sentences on federal agents or employees who sought to enforce such a law. This, of course, assumes that a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons will be enacted by Congress.

If the proposed Louisiana law comes to pass, it wouldn’t be the first time a state attempted to nullify a federal law. In 1808, a number of New England states threatened to nullify a federal embargo on products for England and France. Before the Civil War brought an end to slavery, many Northern states sought to block the enforcement of the pro-slavery Fugitive Slave Acts. More recently, many Southern states in the 1950s declared the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education to be unconstitutional in order to preserve racial segregation in their schools.

In every instance, however, nullification has been roundly rejected. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes federal law as “the supreme law of the land.” Furthermore, the Constitution vests the federal judiciary, and ultimately the Supreme Court, with the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The court has specifically rejected nullification attempts a number of times, as recently as 1958.

Supporters of nullification efforts often wave the “states’ rights” flag. The framers, however, never intended that the states would have the power to reject or nullify federal laws that they believe are unconstitutional. As James Madison wrote in 1830, such a power would “speedily put an end to the Union itself.”

While the proposed Louisiana Preservation of Individual Gun Rights of Citizens Act may not bring “an end to the Union itself,” it is nevertheless a misguided attempt by some lawmakers to voice their opposition to federal gun-control measures. In the name of protecting the constitutional rights of Louisianans, our legislators would violate the Constitution themselves.

Louisiana law already provides vast protection to gun owners. The recent amendment to the Louisiana Constitution guarantees that any future regulation would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny. In the upcoming session, Louisiana lawmakers should focus on encouraging business growth, balancing the budget, and improving our state’s secondary and higher education systems. They should not waste their time, nor ours, debating a plainly unconstitutional measure like the Louisiana Preservation of Individual Gun Rights of Citizens Act.

Chase Tettleton

lawyer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by foldgers - 04/03/2013

OK, Sam, I agree that these politicians could violate the very constitution they are intending to protect. Good point, but that's where it gets murky in my opinion. Because they are the federal government, they can pick which rights granted in the constitution to put limits on? What gives them the right? That in itself is also breaking the rules of the constitution. I honestly do not believe the founders believed that the Federal government would ever ITSELF pass so many laws for the union to follow. All these laws for drugs, prostitution, gambling and the millions of others created should have been left up to each state to create for themselves. My point being, it kind of sucks that if the federal government passes a law THEY think is good for the union, that no matter what it is, we all have to follow. Forget gun control for a second. "What if tomorrow they said hey guys, slavery is legal again, everyone of African decent is now a slave again." - That would be the law of the land and we would all be forced to follow it. Of course that would never happen, but trying to make a point, are we giving the federal government free reign to creat whatever laws they wish? It seems that way and that was NOT EVER intended. Leave gun issues to the states, it is not a federal issue.

2) Comment by DMJ - 04/03/2013

Well put, Chase. This law is nothing more than political theatre designed to whip up anti-Obama/anti-Democratic sentiment among the citizens of Louisiana (as if there wasn't enough already). It's stupid. So is anyone who thinks it's constitutional or a good idea. Dumb, dumb, dumb... of course, there are hundreds of thousands of people in our fair state who still fly the Confederate flag unironically, so I guess assuming everyone knows that nullification is impossible is assuming too much. Ugh...

3) Comment by prbeav - 02/03/2013

@bighug. I think many legislators constantly focus on expanding the legal system because they are lawyers and imagine profiting from their position. Lawyering is the primary reason America is charging headlong toward bankruptcy.>>>>We the People as defined in the US Constitution should put an end to it with two reforms. First, as a provision for voting, require each citizen who wishes to vote to paraphrase the preamble to the US Constitution, stating, in the words they commit to and trust in, the seven goals of We the People of the United States. Second, require each candidate for office to state their platform showing how it would fulfill the preamble to the US Constitution. This reform by the citizens has been needed during the period June, 1788 (when the ninth state ratified the US Constitution) until the present, or 225 years.>>>>The first nine states ratified the Constitution, thus forming a nation. The other four states quickly joined the Nation bringing the Union to thirteen sates. Other states have opted to join and been accepted into the nation since then, until today there are fifty states.>>>>A state that might consider seceding from the Union should strongly consider first the ethics of separating from the Union and second the consequences: foremost the consequence evidenced by the US Civil War.>>>>In light of these considerations, it seems to me any legislator who would lead his constituency into unconstitutional stands is himself/herself not of We the People and thus in risk of suffering the law. In the extreme case, it could be treason, which risks the loss of life.>>>>The people need to decide whether or not they are of We the People and if so, bring the US Constitution to the attention of legislators. Too many people consider themselves among "we, the people," the majority voters, who are divided--have no common purpose.

4) Comment by Chrilter - 02/03/2013

gerald, so if "they" take so much when going for "reasonable regulations" then why didn't they just ban all guns when they outlawed automatic weapons? how then did the Supreme Court just rule for an individual right to own a firearm in the home? Please know the law and legal history before you comment because you have NO idea what you are talking about. If the Fed "took a mile", how is it that we have 300 million guns in this country? How is it that NO-ONE in Congress has said the first word about banning the owning of firearms within the home? Surely they believe that they could pass it if they are SO powerful.....bottomline is that bighug is right.....just costing LA money that we can ill afford to waste

5) Comment by [e-mail] - 02/03/2013

Somebody has to do something to rein in Federal activists; "future gun regulations" is nothing but creeping anathema to gun owners because they know that the misguided people being duped by leftists who are using the Feds to do their dirty work are being fooled by rhetoric begging for "reasonable regulations". Give an inch; they take a mile.

6) Comment by potkcalb - 02/03/2013

Louisiana doesn't have a monopoly on idiots. Mississippi legislators also initiated an asinine "nullification" measure.

7) Comment by Bighug - 02/03/2013

If lawmakers stopped wasting time, we could do with a fraction of the ones we have. Passing this law will assure good fees for several lawyers and judges on both sides of the case before it is declared unconstitutional. Why do you suppose they pass such idiodic laws?

8) Comment by gary - 02/03/2013

Chase, excellent letter - however, this will not stop those three lawmakers from screaming that our current POTUS is trying to take our guns - it is good P R for them. Kinda like wrapping Old Glory around their shoulder and shaking the bible at us . Works every time.