John R. Houk
© January 22, 2016
I was raised through High School and College in eastern Washington State (to distinguish from the predominantly Left Wing west side). However, I have lived in Oklahoma for about 25 years (give or take). I am probably more akin to Okie Conservative voters than I am to Washington State voters.
In saying all that I am quite pleased with a State Senate bill that will officially be introduced at the beginning of the Oklahoma State legislative session beginning on February 1, 2016.
Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) will introduce the Second Amendment Preservation Act to be filed as SB1123. The bill is sure to cause controversy with America’s current Leftist-in=Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. Currently Obama is making another end-run around the U.S. Constitution and Congress by forcing Americans to live with unconstitutional restrictions against the Second Amendment restraining American citizens from guns that the Second Amendment guarantees to possess.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. (Bold emphasis is Blog Editor’s – Second Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)
You should be able to guess that Obama does not support the “individual right theory” but rather is a “Living Constitution” advocate of “the collective rights theory”. Whenever you see the word “collective” the political objective is Leftist-Marxist in orientation. (Living Constitution vs. Originalism See ‘Our Constitution: Absolutely Not A “Living Breathing Document”’ and “Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society”)
Let’s be clear on Obama’s early January 2016-gun control push. Some of the Dem President’s actions have the appearance of targeting gun purchases that probably should not have occurred. For example, people with mental health issues and expanded background checks.
BUT every time a Leftist politician puts forth well intentioned laws or bureaucratic rules with the enforcement of rule of law behind it, the toe is in the door for slow yet widening restrictions on individuals with more and more authority placed into the top-to-bottom grasp of government intrusion on individual rights.
The administrative steps will include a crackdown on gun dealers who bill themselves as “collectors” or “personal sellers” but are actually engaged in the business of firearms sales, including transactions online, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will require more of these dealers to obtain federal licenses, at the agency’s discretion, necessitating background checks on their sales.
The administration also will propose $500 million for expanded access to mental health services and, in a move that could raise privacy concerns, will seek to include’ mental health information on background checks for gun purchases.
The FBI will hire 230 examiners — an increase of 50 percent — to conduct the background checks on gun purchases. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year received 22.2 million requests for background checks, including about 3 million in December alone.
“We intend to make this system more efficient. The goal is keeping bad actors away from firearms,” Ms. Lynch said.
Mr. Obama’s budget for fiscal 2017 also will call for 200 more ATF agents to enforce existing laws. Beefing up the department’s budget has often met with a lack of enthusiasm in Congress.
The president also will require background checks for gun purchases conducted through a trust or corporation. Officials said the number of applications for such gun purchases has risen from about 900 in 2000 to more than 90,000 in 2014.
He also directed the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to conduct research into “smart gun” technology, “to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.”
On the mental health aspects of the president’s actions, the White House said the Social Security Administration will begin the rule-making process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons.
The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove legal barriers preventing states from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing guns for specific mental health reasons. (Obama’s new gun regulations to require more background checks on purchases; By Dave Boyer; Washington Times; 1/4/16)
Background checks are good; however, background checks can be abused to the point of making it impossible to purchase a gun. Mental Health restrictions are good, but what if the Mental Health rule restrictions include something simplistic as agoraphobia, a fear of heights, a fear of being raped, a fear of home invasion and so on. Leftist abuse is ripe for the toe to kick down the entire door of constitutional individual rights.
Ergo thank GOD for Oklahoma and a bastion of voters that stick up and elect people with strong American values. State Senator Dahm’s Second Amendment Preservation Act is a constitutional State’s Rights implication of nullifying Federal intrusion of extending the arm of Big Brother over an issue best left to each individual American State to decide as per the Tenth Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People; U.S. Constitution)
So let’s take a look at the article that made me pleased to reside in the great State of Oklahoma from the Tenth Amendment Center.
Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify in Practice All New Federal Gun Control Measures
Posted January 21, 2016 10:27 pm
OKLAHOMA CITY (Jan. 22, 2016) – An Oklahoma bill prefiled for the 2016 legislative session would prohibit state cooperation with the enforcement all future federal gun control measures, effectively nullifying them in practice within the state.
Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) prefiled Senate Bill 1123 (SB1123) this week. Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, the legislation would prohibit any state or local agency, along with their employees, from knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any future federal act, law, order, rule or regulation issued regarding a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition. The bill would also ban the use of state assets or money in the enforcement of future federal gun laws.
Any local government found to have assisted in the enforcement of such federal gun laws in violation of the act would lose all of its grant funds the following year. State or local employers would face criminal penalties for knowingly violating the law in their official capacity.
SB1123 would effectively withdraw all state cooperation from the implementation or enforcement of future federal gun laws.
The legislation does not require any determination of constitutionality. It doesn’t attempt to physically interfere with federal enforcement of its own laws, but instead simply directs all state agencies to simply stand down. By removing resources and assistance that the federal government relies upon to carry out enforcement, these federal gun laws would be blocked in effect.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”
SB1123 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Language in the bill refers to this universally accepted principle.
“Pursuant to and in furtherance of the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the federal government may not commandeer this State’s officers, agents or employees to participate in the enforcement or facilitation of any federal program not expressly required by the Constitution of the United States.”
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. 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.”
SB1123 will be officially introduced on when the 2016 legislative session begins on Feb. 1. At that time it will receive a committee assignment. It will have to pass out of committee by a majority vote before moving on to the full Senate for consideration.
TAKE ACTION IN SUPPORT
In Oklahoma: follow all the steps to support this bill at THIS LINK
All other states: contact your state legislator and encourage them to introduce similar legislation to stop federal gun control at this link.
Nullifying Obama’s Gun Executive Order
John R. Houk
© January 22, 2016
Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify in Practice All New Federal Gun Control Measures
Starting in 1767, in response to the Townshend Acts, John Dickinson, often referred to as “the Penman of the Revolution” wrote a series of 12 essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”
In his first, he spent time discussing the last of the acts, the New York Restraining Act, which was punishment for the Assembly of New York, suspending its legislative powers for failing to fully comply with orders from the crown. He wrote:
If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.
He continued to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other assemblies to have passed a non-binding resolution informing parliament that the act was a violation of rights and that it should be repealed.
Why? His answer came through clearly in his signature, where he wrote the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt.
Small things grow great by concord.
Clearly, the Penman of the Revolution was right – and small things did grow great in the coming years.
In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. In recent years, this country has seen small things grow great once again – the simple introduction of non-binding resolutions affirming the 10th amendment has grown into a movement…
The Tenth Amendment Center is a national think tank that works to preserve and protect the principles of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power as required by the Constitution.
Please don’t hesitate to contact us with questions or comments.