In the wake of the latest firearms control laws implemented in California this past month, you’ll see a large number of pro-firearms proponents bailing out of the state within the final months of the year. Some are fighting “Gunmageddon” by petition and by conceptual design, I should add. However, there are other problems with the state of California, and it’s not just California, but most of the rest of our favorite anti-firearms states. The economies in the states of California, New York and New Jersey are horrendous, to say the least. This is driving many of the anti-firearms proponents out of those states as well. And, with them comes their unconstitutional mindsets and votes.
We saw the effects of Californification occuring in Washington, Oregon and Colorado post-Sandy Hook. The two former states saw the implementation of mandatory background checks on private sales. Colorado saw the sales ban on detachable magazines with a capacity greater than 15-rounds. Washington’s I-594 policy was affronted with one of the largest felony civil disobedience protests in United States history. If it’s convenient, Coloradans simply drive over the state line to purchase the magazines they want. There was also a protest where the criminal transfer of magazines was made in front of the capitol building. But, when is enough actually enough? The poisonous, un-Constitutional rhetoric being concocted and perfected in these states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and parts of Illinois — is getting out of hand.
The Republican National Committee released their 2016 election platform on Tuesday. I went directly to the 2nd Amendment section of the platform and found something extremely surprising in the wording;
“This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration … we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents … We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban.”
Again, the problem is on the state level. A handful of the fifty states are desecrating the U.S. Constitution and making targets of their civilians while the lawmakers get their own ruleset for ownership, usage and carry. As I wrote this, California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom got on his pedestal and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey took it upon herself to adjust the meaning of the MA assault weapons ban parameters. She’s going after state compliant and featureless firearms — what she is calling, loophole weapons. The enforcement letter here.
“They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.” – Paragraph 8
It’s a rewriting of the two-point AWB system in Massachusetts. The compliance firearms came from a legal understanding of what was and wasn’t allowed as far as features went. The banned features included — but are not limited to and vary by state — muzzle devices, collapsible and folding stocks, bayonet lugs, grenade launcher cuts, pistol grips, barrel shroud (see: “shoulder thing that goes up”), etc. Healey is going directly after the operating mechanisms of the firearm and other politicians will follow suit. It will be a type-specific ban on firearms in the state of Massachusetts. In short…
It was never about the features. It is about control.
The Tough Call
After Sandy Hook, there was a rush for pro-firearms states to create their own pro-firearms nullification laws out of fear of another Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Tenth Amendment Center covers that, still to this day.
The big question is, should anything be done about the violations of the Constitution on the state level? It’s interesting to consider the “violation of states’ rights”. You would most certainly hear such a claim from the same people that say nullification laws are in violation of the Constitution. What should go without saying is that the Constitution stands above states’ jurisdiction, just as it does Federal jurisdiction. The problem is enforcement. Who would we trust to enforce the Constitution?
The legal methodology of removing unconstitutional laws and individual sovereignty violations hasn’t worked. The violations against the 2nd Amendment primarily include the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the Hughes Amendment of FOPA 1986, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
They are violations of the Constitution based compromises of those politicians who say they are pro-2nd Amendment.
It’s dangerous to consider a Federal level of enforcement due to the rule of law. What is written in can be undone and turned on us. What may start out as a Constitutional enforcement unit may later be turned into something more sinister than the BATFE. What is just as dangerous is letting states like California and Massachusetts continue to make things up as they go along while indoctrinating the next generations. Those people will not be able to stay in California, namely, due to economics and their politics will take root in adjacent states if left unchecked. The hostility coming from these states is a call for us to do something before it’s too late.
How should Constitutional Enforcement be conducted? That’s the question.
This next week, I will mostly be offline. But, I will bring some updates to the Facebook and Twitter pages, straight from North Los Angeles. I’ll be in a couple of FFLs and some pawn shops to see how the state is doing internally.