Negative reaction to President Obama’s executive gun orders has been decidedly strong. This latest White House effort to restrict constitutional rights has run into an upwelling of resistance.
There are moves afoot in several state houses to nullify any federal gun restrictions, but Beaufort County, North Carolina, has led the way by becoming the first local government to officially pass a nullification resolution.
The resolution challenges the state to follow suit:
“The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners calls upon the Governor and General Assembly of the State of North Carolina to immediately pass an act to nullify the implementation within the State of North Carolina of any Federal law, executive order or regulations restricting the right to keep and bear arms.”
It also draws a line in refusing to help any federal officials enforce any new anti-gun regulations that are coming down the pike.
The county’s board of commissioners passed the resolution unanimously in front of a packed meeting room that cheered the results.
Several sheriffs across the country have also put the federal government on notice that they will not be enforcing any federal laws that encroach on the Second Amendment.
Josephine County, Oregon, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson said, “A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, ‘Follow the Constitution.'”
Sheriff Robin Cole of Pine County, Minnesota, recently sent a letter to residents saying that he did not believe the federal government had the legal right to tell states how to regulate firearms. He wrote that he would refuse to enforce laws that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.
Liberal legal scholars and other self-appointed experts in the media deny that sheriffs can do anything about federal laws, citing the Supremacy Clause.
Sam Kamin, constitutional law professor at the University of Denver, said, “Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”
He and others have gone as far as to compare defiance of federal gun grabbing to resistance to civil rights in the 1960s.
Such an argument exactly reverses the case with the Civil Rights Act because in this case, it is the federal government that is taking away rights rather than enforcing them.
It could be argued that there is a similarity in that during the 1960s, it was mostly liberals, at the state and local level, who were trying to block Americans’ rights, and in the present situation it is liberals again, albeit at the federal level this time, who are going after gun rights.
But don’t expect the media to recognize that.
And of course there are plenty of liberal state and local officials who are willing to roll over for a pat on the tummy from the feds, such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has ordered city agencies to divest any funds in stocks of gun makers.
“City of Los Angeles funds should not go to profit companies who produce weapons designed to maximize carnage and death,” said Villaraigosa, who has met with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other extreme-Left mayors from Southern California about gun control measures.
In parts of the country where they haven’t yet outlawed individual freedom, however, the reaction to the federal anti-gun push has been strong and opposed. Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr, for example, is seeking a law that would make it a crime to enforce any federal ban on guns or ammunition, and he has called for the common-sense approach of having armed security guards at schools to protect children.
“We’re tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn’t solve the problem,” Carr said.
Wyoming state Rep. Kendell Kroeker has co-sponsored a similar bill that would make a federal ban unenforceable and charge federal agents with a crime if they tried.
“I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could,” Kroeker said. “And they’re only restrained by the opposition of the people and other lawmakers who are concerned about our rights.”