In mid-April, Kansas passed a law asserting that federal gun regulations do not apply to guns made and owned in Kansas. Under the law, Kansans could manufacture and sell semi-automatic weapons in-state without a federal license or any federal oversight.<\/p>\n
Kansas\u2019 \u201cSecond Amendment Protection Act\u201d backs up its states\u2019 rights claims with a penalty aimed at federal agents: when dealing with \u201cMade in Kansas\u201d guns, any attempt to enforce federal law is now a felony. Bills similar to Kansas\u2019 law have been introduced in at least 37 other states. An even broader bill is on the desk of Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell. That bill would exempt any gun owned by an Alaskan from federal regulation. In Missouri, a bill declaring federal gun laws \u201cnull and void\u201d passed by an overwhelming majority in the state house, and is headed for debate in the senate.<\/p>\n
Mobilizing the pre-Civil-War doctrine of \u201cnullification,\u201d these bills assert that Congress has overstepped its ability to regulate guns \u2014 and that states, not the Supreme Court, have the ultimate authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not.<\/p>\n
The head of the Kansas\u2019s State Rifle Association, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, says she put the bill together and found it a sponsor. While the NRA regularly lauds passages of states\u2019 gun-rights laws, it stayed silent on Kansas\u2019 law, and, so far, has kept a low profile on nullification. (The group did not respond to our requests for comment.)<\/p>\n
Many observers see nullification bills as pure political theater, \u201cthe ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance,\u201d as UCLA law Professor Adam Winkler put it. He said he doubts the laws will ever be enforced, and, if they are, expects them to be struck down by the courts. <\/p>\n
Winkler and others say nullification laws violate the Constitution, which makes federal law \u201cthe supreme law of the land\u2026anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.\u201d Indeed, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter last week to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, asserting that Kansas\u2019 law is \u201cunconstitutional.\u201d (Brownback, who signed the bill into law, did not immediately respond to our requests for comment.) <\/p>\n
But the growing number of such bills — which have passed by large majorities in at least one chamber of seven state legislatures–highlight the challenge gun control advocates face in their attempt to fight for gun regulation at the state level.<\/p>\n
It also shows how nullification is fast becoming a mainstream option for state politicians. In Pennsylvania, 76 state legislators signed on to sponsor a measure that would invalidate any new federal ban of certain weapons or ammunition. The bill would impose a minimum penalty of one year in prison for federal agents who attempt to enforce any new law.<\/p>\n
Supporters of nullification are not simply frustrated at what they see as congressional and presidential overreach. During a hearing about one of the nullification bills she had introduced, Tennessee State Sen. Mae Beavers called the Supreme Court a \u201cdictatorship.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou think that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of any of these laws. I don\u2019t believe that. I don\u2019t believe it was ever granted the authority under the Constitution,\u201d Beavers was quoted as saying in The Tennessean. (Reached by phone, she asked to comment later, then did not respond to further requests.) <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court rejected nullification in 1958, after Southern states tried to use the concept to avoid desegregating public schools. \u201cNo state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it,\u201d the Court ruled. <\/p>\n