“Dusting off the polemics of nullification, the supposed ‘law and order’ politicians in Jefferson City would rather support an unconstitutional measure than set a law-abiding example of government responsibility.” – NY Times editorial board in Statehouse Swagger on the Gun Debate [at nytimes.com]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

60 COMMENTS

  1. well makes sense the NYT doesn’t care about the 10th amendment, they sure as hell don’t like the 2nd.

    Now, the interesting thing is that they are all for gay marriage and “equality” for gender identification, but isn’t that a state right’s issue, too? Forcing other states to recognize something their people are against?

    WHen the civil and gay rights communities realize that they will go further with their arguments when they accept the 2nd amendment as written (“shall not be infringed”), then they will do well for their own cause

    • In the aftermath of United States v. Windsor the gay marriage brigade has already won their battle. The shared benefits philosophy that rested originally on the good sense of providing child-producing and child-rearing mothers with financial security, health and social-security insurance sharing, has a new philosophic ground, that providing sex of any kind on a resident basis justifies tax-supported subsidies, children be damned. Indeed, the children will have pay for the benefits.

      The ‘gun community’ should not preach intolerance of homosexual behavior. The only issue of relevance to others is the financial and social consequences of benefits tied to marital status. I suppose women-as-mothers are happy that women-married-to-women will receive all the same subsidies that a mother of three children does. They vote that way.

      I have no problem with men who prefer giving BJ’s or bending over. I do question the social sense of subsidizing the preference, and don’t see my questioning as even in the slightest an issue of ‘discrimination’ but an issue of misplaced tax and insurance subsidies. Indeed, it may be time to remove such subsidies from childless marriages. Why should a childless man get to claim SSN benefits based on his wife’s work history? No reason that makes any sense.

      10th Amendment? Don’t make me laugh, Dirk. The Supremes just imposed on every state a duty to recognize gay marriage, just as it imposes a duty to defer to federal gun laws. Cannabis, however, is apparently a state prerogative. Sure, it all makes sense. Laugh.

      • I can’t understand how anyone thinks marriage (an inherently religious ritual) is any of the government’s business anyway. What they need to do is stop the institutionalized discrimination against single people. “Spousal benefits” are actually the purview of a written contract between two individuals and/or the insurance company, the mortgage company, etc.

        I guess it comes from the days when women were chattel property. The father “gives away” the bride and all that schtuff.

  2. In an effort to spare all of you the mental anguish of reading the editorial yourselves, here are a couple of choice quotes for you. As if you didn’t know the NYT was uber-biased. Emphasis mine:

    “The gun lobby’s triumphalism has only grown since Congress scuttled away from its clear obligation to provide greater gun safety. ”

    and this one addressing the proposed 2 ATF changes:

    “One will limit the return of American battlefield weapons that have been flooding the country; another stops the practice that lets felons and domestic abusers obtain arms by registering them through corporations and trusts.”

    • M1 Garands and carbines have been flooding our country?

      How did I miss this? And here all this time I’d though they were as scarce as coal-fired automobiles.

    • And the NYT recognizes the executive orders are merely gestures, and modest ones at that.

      “These gestures are modest compared with the overwhelming need for broad federal legislation.”

      Their gesture does nothing to help reduce crime… yet prevents me and other law-abiding folks from owning a historically significant American antique rifle like what my grandfather would have used when he served in WWII. It’s shameful.

      • J Mike, the problem with an executive order is that unless congress acts to defund (if possible) said order it does carry the force of law the same as if it was passed by an act of congress and signed by the president. All BS still to me.

  3. It’s “Bizarre” and “Unconstitutional” when states nullify federal gun control but it “improves the public safety and health of communities” when states nullify federal drug laws. Liberal Logic at it’s best.

    • The supposed conservatives are about the same; they just cherry-pick different stuff.

      We really do need a second political party.

      • I think the term you’re looking for is “Supposed Republicans”
        I know quite a few Tea Party supporters, and we get along just fine with our libertarian friends.

        How does a “Constitutionalist” party sound?

        With none of that “living document” bullshit.

        • “Living document,” sayeth Gonzalez. I don’t think that means what he thinks it means.

          The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Washingtonians spend all their time trying to bypass, circumvent and eliminate it.

          A Constitutionalist Party would be just dandy with me. Heck, so would the Tea Party were not the representatives I’ve met more religiously-fanatical-social-activists than true conservatives. The original version was alright, and I gather that it survives in places.

          The Great Quote of these times in relation to firearms rights was our Tea Partyesque Governor Brownback saying that “this is not a partisan issue in Kansas.”

          In endorsing gay marriage (to name a “liberal” cause) the people of Iowa said that while personally not palatable to the majority, denial of what appeared to be a civil right was much less palatable.

          Real government is possible. We are and deserve better than the Feds we have.

          I’m hoping that the Federal Tyrany shall die of a thousand cuts, one Kansas-built NFA-free suppressor, legal pot plant or non-compliant speed limit at a time.

          The many States United against our woud-be Central Collectivist Overlords.

          It could happen.

        • Uh, is the Libertarian party still on everybody’s sh!t list? There’s already a “Constitution” party, but they, like most rightists, believe that women are chattel property.

          The Libertarians are the only ones who have consistently supported, upheld, and defended the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

          You’ve tried the leftists, you’ve tried the rightists, you’ve tried the so-called “centrists” and “moderates” – isn’t it time for a REAL change?

          And, bottom line, what have you got to lose?

      • The Tea Party and the libertarians will either take over the Republican party or the party is doomed. We’ll have to wait to see which, but a Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul ticket in ’16 would pretty well constitute a takeover.

        As far as cherry picking, that’s just part of human nature. Might as well get used to it.

        • I am used to it, but I’ll not pretend to accept it.

          The Constitution is not a salad bar from which to pick and choose.

          And as a card-carrying Liberal in the Jeffersonian mold (not a neo-liberal, collectivist “progressive”) I’d vote for Paul and Cruz (in whatever order) in a heartbeat.

        • Classical liberal. Constitutional conservative. I stray away a bit from the libertarian label just because of the utopian libertarians and the douche bag libertarians. The douche bag libertarians are the ones who don’t really give a lick about anything but legalizing pot. Pretty self explanatory there.

          The utopian libertarians are a little more educated and think that if we could just get government out of everything we’d achieve utopia. For instance they believe that all drugs should be legal and for that matter eliminate all consentual crimes (gambling, prostitution, etc.). I’m actually more or less on board with that but I’m intelligent (not to be confused with educated) enough to realize that there will always be people who refuse to abide by our laws regardless of how many or few of them there are. Do you really think that drug pusher on the corner is just going to go out an get a McJob if you could all of a sudden walk into the pharmacy and get your crack for a fraction of the price? No, he’ll move into another vice and if all consentual crimes are eliminated he’ll move into non-consentual crimes like theft or robbery. That in itself doesn’t justify all the resources we spend to make drugs more expensive, but the utopianism gets a bit gets a bit pie in the sky for me. I’d be happy to meet them halfway though.

    • Yet, I can’t seemed to find the words “shall not be infringed” pertaining to the right to use drugs in the constitution.

      • As far as I am concerned, the persuancy clause equals “shall not be infringed” in regards to the whole constitution. It’s a little section of the supremecy clause the feds like to forget…

      • The only place in which drugs are mentioned are Amendments eighteen and twenty-one.

        Whie morphine through the Sears catalog is indeed within the purview of the Feds, pot plants in the back yard aren’t. One is far more damaging than the other, and of course there’s that bit about commerce between the various states.

        There’s the general principe that the Feds are to keep to their place implies “shall not be infringed” in relation to matters not within the sphere of Fedeal responsibility.

    • Just call MO a “sanctuary state for illegal guns”

      CA has gotten away what that for immigrants for years

      • Contrast the actions of CA, CO, etc. in directly contradicting Federal law with that of AZ wishing to help enforce Federal immigration law, and being told not to interfere.

        Can anyone rationalize that inconsistency?

    • I noticed that clever bit of semantics also. Perhaps the NYT has determined that “gun control” is too close to “government control”, so they cloak the “control” with the announced intent of “safety”.
      Everybody wants “gun safety”, right?

      • Notice how the anti-gun lobby calls the NRA a “gun lobby” instead of Constitutional rights lobby, or how they play the negative spin in “weakening gun laws” instead of strengthening existing gun rights? It’s a sad commentary, but too many people are desperately fighting to be slaves, or are fighting to remain slaves.

        The paper of record has shut off all comments with less than 300 posted. Cowards. No, poltroons!

        • 300 people read the NYT? Maybe the comments section got swamped by the unusual amout of traffic and shut itself down out of panic.

  5. The comment section of that editorial has reaffirmed my position that people who read the NYT are totally bat shit insane.

    • They cut off comments rather quickly, as well. They probably don’t want to publish any dissenting views.

    • Agree. Scary that so many people are ignorant about background checks and “gun violence” FACTS. But why let FACTS get in the way of their agenda? Love the arrogance in referring to the majority (land mass) of the nation as “flyover states”. KMA

    • I think this one is my favorite.-
      Richard LehnerSt. Petersburg, Floriduh
      Just add me to the list of people that wish the President would,(if the power and authority exhists), just play hard ball with these and the rest of the nra/kkk nuts. I have read other posts suggesting, and this is the part I wish could be done, is then pull out any Federal Aid to states pulling this crap including the ones against the AHCA. Just don’t supply any resources for the next tornado, or disaster of any type, and don’t send any money for highways or anything. Just go on television and firmly state “The American people are tired of this nonsence and we won’t even legally challange it; we are from now on not suppling any federal money to you”. Can this be done? Maybe if they can pick and choose what laws to follow we can too? Any ideas? peace and coexist.-

      Oh and this one-It is ironic, in the gun debate, that the Second Amendment groups and NRA groups show up waving their American flags and talking about the Constitution like it was the Bible. Now they are making laws that are unconstitutional? Little hypocritical?-

      And this one-For you civil war people-
      PogoWasRightMelbourne Florida
      A long time ago South Carolina tried the same thing at Fort Sumter – claimed they did not have to follow federal law, you know: nullification. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.

      Idiots.

      • What South Carolina did wasn’t nullification. It tried to leave the Union. But if you try to leave the Union, you get killed. Just like if you try to leave the Mafia.

  6. These state nullification laws appear to be the only way the states possess to voice their anger at the Feds violation of the 10th Amendment. It doesn’t surprise me that the Slimes would get all twisty over it.

  7. From the New York Times article, “… pending proposal in Missouri that would pronounce all federal gun safety laws null and void in the state …”.

    I have to laugh at their phrasing “gun safety laws”. Few federal gun laws have anything to do with safety.

    More to the point of the article, the New York Times accuses Missouri of violating the rule of law. Why don’t we hear them accusing the federal government of violating the rule of law? Which rule of law you ask? Nothing short of the Supreme Law of The Land — our United States Constitution — and specifically the Second Amendment which states that, “… the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” While the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Second Amendment does not give our government any room for “reasonable” restrictions or infringements. I guess the New York Times missed that notion.

  9. I’m not particularly fond of the nullification movement myself. You should be careful what you wish for, if the 10th amendment trumps federal gun laws then some states will use it trump the second amendment. Generally speaking, federal gun laws are less restrictive than state laws. I live in a state where NFA and class 3 weapons are prohibited – forget a tax stamp, they’re banned outright. I also live in a state that requires a permit to carry a concealed weapon – also not required federally. Purchasing a handgun requires a permit to acquire (or CCW). And I live in a relatively gun friendly state.

    We also have major issues with transportation of weapons through unfriendly states. There is a federal law protecting our rights but it needs to be strengthened, nullification will weaken that federal law with the others. If Missouri can nullify a tax stamp than what will New York nullify?

    • The argument that “federal law trumps state law” seems to make sense, but only if the federal law is within the guidelines of the Constitution. So much of federal law is not even close.

      There’s this idea that because an action taken completely within one state’s boundaries might possibly affect some aspect of other actions that other people take that occur across state lines, that gives the US government the power to completely regulate and/or prohibit all of those actions and any related actions. IMO, that logic is ridiculous and absurd. The fact that the US Supreme Court has said otherwise (e.g. Wickard v. Filburn) reinforces the idea that states should nullify federal laws that should not exist.

      The federal government is supposed to have very little jurisdiction over everyday life. That is supposed to be the state’s jurisdiction (and IMO the states should also do far, far less than they do).

      As far as gun laws, I think “shall not be infringed” is pretty @#$%ing clear, despite the fact that it is routinely ignored. It doesn’t say “shall not be infringed unless there’s some compelling government interest that we decide is compelling enough to give us reason to infringe upon your rights.”

      FWIW, I’d also add that the law that protects gun transportation through states makes sense as a federal law because it deals with an action that is clearly taking place across state lines (and not an action that is completely within one state’s boundaries) – physical transportation of an item between states – and therefore is arguably the purview of the US government.

      • Unfortunately, we have in reality a “living constitution”. That wasn’t what it was meant to be and it isn’t what it should be, but a constitution is only as strong as a country’s will to follow it. There will always be a ruling class that will push for more control over our daily lives and most of us are too busy to push back.

        When it comes to the second amendment the federal government infringes less than most states – no laws restricting concealed carry, no magazine capacity limit, no permits to purchase or possess (except NFA of course). If you’re going to allow infringement of a right that is explicitly not to be infringed it would be best not to leave that to the whims of 2 bit local politicians.

  10. I’m with the Gov. on this one. The nullification movement seems misguided. What I thought was most enlightening were the comments on the executory actions at the end of the article. It allows some perspective on how ridiculous the NYT’s perceptions of these actions are. And I think think it gives glimpse into the crystal ball of how things are going to move forward – form over substance, and bad form at that.

    • “Misguided??????????????”

      It could be the only thing that stands between us and the Obammessiah’s takeover.

  11. Hooray for nullification. It should be used far more often, given the overreach of governments.

    The NYT editorial board makes me want to vomit. Not only does the editorial attack gun rights, it even mocks the bulletproof whiteboards that a university in eastern Maryland has purchased (and while getting bulletproof whiteboards is not enough action by itself, the university is at least sensible enough to realize that some protection from bullets might be helpful).

    I’m sure the New York Times EB has written a similar editorial that mocks and attacks Colorado and Washington state for their nullification of federal drug laws regarding marijuana, right?

  12. Now that you made me read the whole thing, I have a few thoughts:

    “No less regrettable is that they are hardly alone in their obeisance to the gun lobby.”
    When will anti-gunners get that that the gun lobby is a small fraction of who they are up against. The NRA claims 5 million members. So what, estimates put gun ownership around 40-50% of us households. That is 45-55 million households or close to 150+ million people. Together they (we) own more than 300 millions guns. 90% of the time, those millions of households are quiet on the issue of guns, only the NRA gets heard. But start pushing control and the sleeping giant wakes up, and is usually pissed. I doubt the Republican politicians of MO are trying to nullify a potential Federal AWB because of the liberal boogeyman (the NRA) but because each and every one of them has a safe full of AR’s they don’t want to have taken away from them. And if not, they know that half of their constituents do.

    “The gun lobby’s triumphalism has only grown since Congress scuttled away from its clear obligation to provide greater gun safety.”
    Stop with the gun safety BS. Gun safety is keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, and keeping your gun locked up away from thieves/children when not in use. You mean bans on high cap mags and arbitrary features that scare you on rifles.

    “another stops the practice that lets felons and domestic abusers obtain arms by registering them through corporations and trusts.”
    I searched the federal docket. As far as I can see, this has NEVER happened.

    “a law-abiding example of government responsibility.”
    This made me laugh out loud. It’s a statement that can only come from a big govt liberal. Call me a cynic, but I really can’t think of an “example of government responsibility” ESPECIALLY when it comes to curtailing constitutionally protected civil liberties. I have 4th amendment protected right to privacy, tell that to the NSA and the drones flying overhead. Now you are going to sic the same federal govt on my 2nd amendment right to keep and bare arms, and you want me to trust them. Right…..

  14. One will limit the return of American battlefield weapons that have been flooding the country; another stops the practice that lets felons and domestic abusers obtain arms by registering them through corporations and trusts.

    Are Korean M1s flooding the country?
    Seriously, does someone have the numbers?

    Do felons or abusers ask their co-trustees to go fetch their suppressor from the FFL so they can, after nine months of waiting, quietly go shoot their ex or mug someone with a SBR?
    All the actions of the felon will come back on the trust members. Therefore the price I would charge a prohibited person to fetch the NFA item would make it easier and cheaper to buy a Glock on the street, right?

  15. I don’t understand how they can say “six states to enact stronger gun safety laws in the last year” and in the next breath say “a score of other statehouses have weakened existing laws,” and then blame that all on the “gun lobby.” Six states go one way, twenty states go another, and that’s all the fault of the “gun lobby?” That certainly sounds like the people speaking, to me.

    Wait a minute, that is the gun lobby. That is the NRA. You know why? The power of NRA comes from the power of its membership, and their willingness to vote their ideals. I am the NRA. You are the NRA. So when Civilian Disarmament Movement express their distaste for the “gun lobby” and the NRA, they’re expressing their distaste for you and me.

  17. Some times after reading that drivel of an editorial.
    Id like to show those elitist turds just what they want.
    The muzzle of my hand gun where the sun don’t shine.
    Whoever wrote that editorial using the new cliché gun safety just gets me ticked off.
    And as far as: “another stops the practice that lets felons and domestic abusers obtain arms by registering them through corporations and trusts.” That’s a full out LIE. Complete abuse of a system that works just fine, except for the year long delays currently in place.
    At the rate they are going I doubt Ill ever see my 22cal can.

  18. A pointed response from an attorney on one of the Missouri ccw mailing lists:

    http://www.emissourian.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article_a998a257-e1fe-54fd-a6a9-600f1f0e0b87.html?TNNoMobile

    “The Governor’s veto claims that the Second Amendment Protection Act nullifies federal firearm restrictions. That is not what the bill says. At Section 1.320.3 the bill says that any federal restrictions which infringe on the Second Amendment are invalid. Under the US Supreme Court’s rulings in the Heller and McDonald decisions such restrictions are already invalid. The bill endorses this view and may be years late but does not create the Constitutional crisis claimed.

    The veto also claims that the bill violates a newspaper’s right to publish the names of hunters, something which would normally require the hunter’s consent. The bill prevents mass publication of gun owner information. This has been done by some newspapers as part of a “hate your neighbor” campaign. Gun owners have a Constitutional right to privacy which this bill protects.”

  19. Civil rights for my gay friends: fully compatible with civil rights for gun owners.

    The second amendment doesn’t just protect all of the other amendments, it protects the non-enumerated rights as well. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, anyone?

    Frankly, some of you OFWGs need to rethink your bigoted and discriminatory attitudes towards LGBT Americans.

    • Agreed. If the gun community even appears to be preaching intolerance, we’re finished.

      We’re in the same boat as the LGBT community: we both have lifestyles which hurt nobody else, yet others have a problem with it and constantly try to stop us by both legal and extra-legal methods.

  20. The NYT pulled out all the stops on this one. I dunno about you, but there are quite a few points in this article that almost made me laugh — I got a hilarious mental image of the entire Times editorial board clutching its collective pearls, swooning in delicately nurtured horror, and reaching for its vinaigrette.

    They and their Dear Leader in the White House have a noble mission:
    – gun safety
    – a law-abiding example of government response
    – greater gun safety
    – limit the return of the former US battlefield weapons that have been flooding the country
    – the overwhelming need for broad federal legislation
    – stop felons and domestic abusers obtaining arms through corporations and trusts

    On the other hand, just look at all the terrible things gun owners and the Evil Gun Lobby ™ are responsible for:
    – dangerous sway over statehouse politicians
    – bizarre legislation
    – unconstitutional
    – hoary states’ right gambit
    – polemics of nullification
    – obeisance to the gun lobby
    – horrendous spates of gun violence
    – weakened existing laws
    – inviting public flaunting of weapons
    – egregious display of insensitivity and arrogance
    – cocky celebrants of gun rights packing weapons openly
    – a shooter gunned down 20 schoolchildren and six adults last December
    – swaggering gun enthusiasts
    – a gunman invaded a moviehouse
    – the gun lobby’s triumphalism
    – Congress scuttled away from its clear obligation
    – blindly salute the Second Amendment
    – the appalling costs of gun mayhem
    – laughable solutions like bulletproof tablets and whiteboards, bulletproof children’s backbacks

    Then I remembered that millions of people actually take these overwrought, pseudo-literary fools seriously.

  22. Hmm…so the NYT sees this legislation as blatantly un-Constitutional. But “Assault Weapons Bans” are plenty Constitutional (eye roll).

  23. Dangit…. the comments are closed on the NYT article. So much for an open dialog on common sense solutions.

  24. Liberals always close comments on their articles typically an hour after they post the article ,so no one can debate it ,heaven forbid some REAL FACTs be posted.” It’s the Liberal way”

Comments are closed.