States’ option for resisting federal gun grabs: Refusing federal dollars?

States’ option for resisting federal gun grabs: Refusing federal dollars?

[Ed. – There are states (like California) that can’t even function without federal dollars.  The Golden State may still be a “net donor” state, but its dependence on federal dollars for education, welfare and health programs, infrastructure spending, and wildlands maintenance is colossal.  The California state revenue take is tremendously overbalanced to sustain the state work force and meet its pension obligations.  There are probably a dozen smaller states — net-recipient states — that can pull through better than California if they lose their federal dollars.  It’s the latter that might look to this option to preserve 2A rights.]

Our constitutional system is one of dual sovereignty, in which state officials are not federal officials and vice versa. Accordingly, state officials cannot be compelled — or “commandeered” — to complete federal tasks. To be sure, states may voluntarily cooperate with federal law enforcement, often in exchange for significant federal subsidies, but they cannot be forced to do the job. …

When understood in this way, the emerging concept of “Second-Amendment sanctuary cities” (or states) is constitutionally sound. Jurisdictions can absolutely stand against the federal government, not by nullifying its laws but by simply declining to assist in their enforcement. …

This brings us to the route the Biden administration is looking to take — motivating states to pass what would technically be “their own” red flag laws by making federal funds conditional on such actions.

Trending: First (possibly last) look at founders of newly ‘liberated city’ in Colorado

Continue reading →

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.