PDA

View Full Version : How do you envision a state rights vs.federal law scenario will play out?




phill4paul
03-18-2010, 04:50 PM
Much has been said about states law/nullification legislation, but I ask has anyone envisioned how this would play out and whether state laws/nullification are merely toothless writs.

Let's take Tennessee as an example. Tennessee has recently passed a Firearms Freedom Act.

It states "“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

The ATF fired back a letter that, in part, read..."because the ACT conflicts with Federal firearms laws regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."..."These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines."

Now then we also know that Federal authorities issued a warrant against Sabre Industries in Nashville and has shut down their assembly. We don't know why as yet, but we know that federal authorities have acted within the state of Tennessee against a manufacturer and that the state of Tennessee has done nothing (that I know of) to issue a cease and desist against the Feds in support of a manufacturer within the state.

I'm not interested in what the particulars of this case are. Whether the Feds are in the right or in the wrong on this particular issue. Lets just concede, for the purpose of this posit that Sabre is on the up and up with regards to state law. The feds have violated state law.

This is the scenario. From here I would ask all who chose to extrapolate on how the state should act to enforce their state laws and how the Feds might respond.

I have my own thoughts. But in the interest of being tldr I'll post it a bit later.

Rael
03-18-2010, 04:56 PM
The courts will throw the laws out and say federal law trumps state law, and the states will be pussies and will back down.

pcosmar
03-18-2010, 05:17 PM
It will mean little until the line in the sand is backed up by ranks with rifles.

Sad but true.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2010, 05:25 PM
The courts will throw the laws out and say federal law trumps state law, and the states will be pussies and will back down.

Without knowing too much about the situation, (meaning the specific case against Sabre Industries) I'd have to place my bets on the above as well.

That being said, what I see happening past that is what happened in the USSR.

I see the fedgov coming apart at the seams, not because of the "political process" and marches and voting and all the other, frankly, meaningless gestures at this point in time. (Not to say, do not participate, I still do, vigorously, and I'll be all in for RP in 2012.)

No, it will come apart for the same reasons the USSR came apart, lack of (or in our case, loss of) basic human and property liberties, endless wars in support of a failing empire, economic collapse, monetary collapse and the inability (or, again, loss of the ability in our case) to manufacture anything of value added that has a large customer demand.

Nationally, we're toast already.

The states that are ready for this, to break away the moment it becomes clear that the fedgov no longer has the ability to turn tanks loose in the streets, will be the states that will restore freedom first and gain their independence back. The states that tarry and dick around, will be re-assimilated back into a post American fedgov, and end up re-living the whole nightmare all over again.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 05:31 PM
The courts will throw the laws out and say federal law trumps state law, and the states will be pussies and will back down.


It will mean little until the line in the sand is backed up by ranks with rifles.

Sad but true.

So the both of you feel that state laws/nullification is just postulation. These are my thoughts also. Without a state militia and the wherewithal of its citizens all these laws/nullification are just toothless writs.

But please try to take it further. What if a state, in this example Tennessee, had sent its state troopers to intervene. What if the state troopers had arrested the ATF agents for acting against state law.

What then? What is the scenario you envision if a state actually had the wherewithal to exert its rights?

I'll give some of my ideas to get the ball rolling.

State embargo by the Feds? The Feds own the land , sea and air. Instead of direct military action?

ChaosControl
03-18-2010, 05:37 PM
"These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines."

Take it to court. There is absolutely not constitutional basis whatsoever for that. There isn't even an idiotic loophole they could use like "general welfare" or "commerce clause" to justify their insanity.

So **** the ATF, **** the federal government. I want to see these states start standing up for their rights and telling the federal government to go to hell. We don't need the federal government, so we should stop obeying them like little slaves.

pcosmar
03-18-2010, 05:42 PM
So the both of you feel that state laws/nullification is just postulation. These are my thoughts also. Without a state militia and the wherewithal of its citizens all these laws/nullification are just toothless writs.

But please try to take it further. What if a state, in this example Tennessee, had sent its state troopers to intervene. What if the state troopers had arrested the ATF agents for acting against state law.

What then? What is the scenario you envision if a state actually had the wherewithal to exert its rights?

I'll give some of my ideas to get the ball rolling.

State embargo by the Feds? The Feds own the land , sea and air. Instead of direct military action?

Then I would once again find myself backing up a police officer. A rare and strange event.
That has only happened once in my life. (came as a surprise to me too)

I do feel it is unlikely, but not impossible.

Stary Hickory
03-18-2010, 05:44 PM
Take it to court. There is absolutely not constitutional basis whatsoever for that. There isn't even an idiotic loophole they could use like "general welfare" or "commerce clause" to justify their insanity.

So **** the ATF, **** the federal government. I want to see these states start standing up for their rights and telling the federal government to go to hell. We don't need the federal government, so we should stop obeying them like little slaves.

MY feelings exactly. States stand up and we back the states. The Federal Government does not even fit in.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2010, 05:45 PM
So the both of you feel that state laws/nullification is just postulation. These are my thoughts also. Without a state militia and the wherewithal of its citizens all these laws/nullification are just toothless writs.

But please try to take it further. What if a state, in this example Tennessee, had sent its state troopers to intervene. What if the state troopers had arrested the ATF agents for acting against state law.

What then? What is the scenario you envision if a state actually had the wherewithal to exert its rights?

I'll give some of my ideas to get the ball rolling.

State embargo by the Feds? The Feds own the land , sea and air. Instead of direct military action?

What if a firefight had broken out between ATF and local or state cops?

Then I would be in the unsettling position that Pete already described, I'd be covering a cop's six.;)

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 06:04 PM
Take it to court. There is absolutely not constitutional basis whatsoever for that. .

Which court? Do you mean the Supreme Court? A Federal entity.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 06:18 PM
I guess my point by following a hypothetical through to its logical conclusion is to show those on these forums that these state right nullification laws are grandstanding.
The states know that they do not have the power to resist the federal government.
They simply do not.
There is not a state out there with an adequate militia. There is not a state out there with the resolve.
The first state that does I'll grab my bug-out and be on my way.
My point is the next time your state politicians grandstand with toothless writs ask them how they intend to enforce it.
Cheer, jump up and down, have a beer for the next state to pass a FFA or Health Care nullification act.
It is for state representatives to score points and NOTHING more.
Washington doesn't give two shits to these laws. They won't.
Because they don't have to.

So please, if anyone on these forums can actually walk me through a scenario where these state laws/nullification actually mean anything let me know.

Because until a state actually EXERTS its rights it is just pissin' in the wind.

pcosmar
03-18-2010, 06:25 PM
Because until a state actually EXERTS its rights it is just pissin' in the wind.
And though I agree with you, I also welcome these resolutions.
I welcome every act of resistance, no matter how small or ineffective. Each adds on to the others.

We do all that we can peacefully, so that one day should violence come to us, we will know we did all we could to prevent it.

And we leave mercy behind us.

Pericles
03-18-2010, 06:28 PM
It will mean little until the line in the sand is backed up by ranks with rifles.

Sad but true.

"There is only one international law, whoever has the best army." GEN Patton

fuzzybekool
03-18-2010, 06:29 PM
The supreme court over the past century have not upheld state's rights and lawsuits seem to do no good. Supreme court judges prefer to use precendence over interpretation of the US Constitution which does our side no good. If a majority of states get together and oppose the Federal government on a certain issue, I believe that would be a better course of action in opposing the federal government's intrusion into state's rights. Of course, the optimum solution would be to elect candidates to Congress who can stack the supreme court with judges who will intrepret and not use precendence, and elect candidates to Congress who will serve the people and not self interests.

kahless
03-18-2010, 06:31 PM
The courts will throw the laws out and say federal law trumps state law, and the states will be pussies and will back down.

In the process they will use the power of the media to spread propaganda that without federal law every protected group will be subject to violence and women will be denied abortions.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 06:32 PM
And though I agree with you, I also welcome these resolutions.
I welcome every act of resistance, no matter how small or ineffective. Each adds on to the others.

We do all that we can peacefully, so that one day should violence come to us, we will know we did all we could to prevent it.

And we leave mercy behind us.

Agreed. I just don't want people to have greater hope in them than what they actually are.

I've got absolutely no problem with them and I support candidates that propose them.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 06:34 PM
"There is only one international law, whoever has the best army." GEN Patton

Quite.

Rael
03-18-2010, 06:57 PM
It will mean little until the line in the sand is backed up by ranks with rifles.

Sad but true.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. Nullification is a game of chicken. Until the federal enforcers fear for their own lives and property, this won't do much good.

If an IRS agent finds himself in a firefight with the local police, I imagine conducting that audit is going to seem ALOT less important.

The problem is that a line is going to have to be drawn, where at some point, the locals are going to have to have to say, if you federal agents do X, we are going to shoot your ass. Then once they draw that line, they actually have to take up arms against their federal counterparts.

I doubt the local law enforcement will even draw a firm line, much less actually shoot at their federal counterparts.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 07:03 PM
I doubt the local law enforcement will even draw a firm line, much less actually shoot at their federal counterparts.

Quite. However, what would be the end result if the governor of a state was to order the states troopers to act in this capacity?

We've already come to the realization that this would never happen.

Oh, but what a day indeed if it were to come to fruition. How would the Feds act. Would they capitulate? How would the media portray the event?

EDIT: Or more so if the governor ordered the National Guard to fulfill this role. Would the National Guard actually work as the states militia or would they take their "marching orders" from Washington?

Perhaps the next governor to sign legislation into effect should be asked if he would use the Guard to enforce it? LOL

Rael
03-18-2010, 07:10 PM
Quite. However, what would be the end result if the governor of a state was to order the states troopers to act in this capacity?



I think at that point it depends on the troopers. Will they obey the governor?

Assuming they did, I imagine it would not be long before the feds arrest the state governor for treason, and the governors successors as well, until someone takes office to counters the order.

I can see the feds nationalizing the state guard to counteract the troopers.

Even if all the troopers followed orders, I don't think it will be enough. State troopers vs national guard?

Now on the other hand, what if the governor called on the state citizens to act against the feds? This might work alot better. You would have alot more people, and better armed than the state troopers anyway.

Pericles
03-18-2010, 07:18 PM
You will know a state is serious when it starts to rebuild its militia, calling on prior military service people to step forward and help defend the rights of the people.

When that happens, we'll "come out of the closet" and form the nucleus of companies and battalions.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 07:48 PM
I think at that point it depends on the troopers. Will they obey the governor?

Assuming they did, I imagine it would not be long before the feds arrest the state governor for treason, and the governors successors as well, until someone takes office to counters the order.

I can see the feds nationalizing the state guard to counteract the troopers.

Even if all the troopers followed orders, I don't think it will be enough. State troopers vs national guard?

Now on the other hand, what if the governor called on the state citizens to act against the feds? This might work alot better. You would have alot more people, and better armed than the state troopers anyway.

Thanks Rael. That's what I'm looking for. Just playing through a scenario.

Troopers are the construct of the state. They are sworn to uphold the states laws. So I wonder how many would participate or face dismissal. I'm thinking maybe the governor may have 30% on his side.

I could see the feds nationalization of the Guard. Orders from the U.S. Army calling for them to "stand down." I could also see various independent units going to the states side depending on their commanders interpretation of purpose. I could also see many individual soldiers siding with the state as opposed to another foreign deployment.

Your correct in saying it will come down to citizens. That for the scenario to work would have to be the crux.

How would the Fed play the media to garner national support to its intrusion of states rights? How would the web, twitter and other social networks counter propaganda.

The government has think tanks that attack every scenario. I'm just doing some mental masturbation on what it would take for a state to actually succeed by defying the Fed.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 07:50 PM
You will know a state is serious when it starts to rebuild its militia, calling on prior military service people to step forward and help defend the rights of the people.

When that happens, we'll "come out of the closet" and form the nucleus of companies and battalions.

This. And I wonder what part the "Oathkeepers" would play in my scenario. If even one state did this I could imagine a great influx of individuals to lend a hand.

Number19
03-18-2010, 08:10 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. This confrontation has actually occurred in recent history - George Wallace in 1963. He stood down after being confronted by federal marshals, supported by the Alabama National Guard.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2010, 08:13 PM
The government has think tanks that attack every scenario. I'm just doing some mental masturbation on what it would take for a state to actually succeed by defying the Fed.

Want to cut the Gordian knot?

Does the state in question have bases or installations that have nukes?

Chew on the ramifications of that.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 08:15 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. This confrontation has actually occurred in recent history - George Wallace in 1963. He stood down after being confronted by federal marshals, supported by the Alabama National Guard.

So there you have it. National guard is out. However, these are different times. The National guard units may be pretty tired of multiple deployments. But, still good cite.

Rael
03-18-2010, 08:15 PM
I'm just doing some mental masturbation on what it would take for a state to actually succeed by defying the Fed.

I think a state could succeed with several scenarios.

1. The best case would be for the courts to back up the states nullification efforts. I don't think this is likely, although I think its likely that the courts may PARTIALLY back up the states by narrowing the scope of what falls under the definition of interstate commerce, but I don't see the court radically changing it.

2. It's possible that even if the courts don't back up the state, that the state, by passively refusing to cooperate, makes it so damn difficult for the feds to operate that they eventually give up, sort of the way they are supposedly doing with medical marijuana states, or RFID.

3.Another scenario-a strong state governor, and either a liberty minded, or very weak President, and the President backs down from the state once they draw the line in the sand.

4.I guess the last option is essentially a civil war with the state. I don't see any single state defeating the fed militarily. But then again, Vietnam didn't defeat the US militarily and still won the war. Are the citizens OK with the feds killing the citizens in their neighboring states? Is the Army happy killing civilians? Just how bad does the federal government want to win? If the state ensure that at best the feds can only win a Pyrrhic victory, that would probably be sufficient for the state to prevail.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 08:16 PM
Want to cut the Gordian knot?

Does the state in question have bases or installations that have nukes?

Chew on the ramifications of that.

Mental mastication indeed. ;)

Rael
03-18-2010, 08:19 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. This confrontation has actually occurred in recent history - George Wallace in 1963. He stood down after being confronted by federal marshals, supported by the Alabama National Guard.

This did come to mind. What you need is a state militia that won't be federalized. Suppose the governor forms such a state militia well in advance. In that case the outcome may be different.

Suppose the governor or the legislature forms a militia which takes an oath to obey they state over the feds, and opens up the militia to all able bodied citizens of the state.

Number19
03-18-2010, 08:25 PM
People talk big but seldom follow through. The only actual "choice" I've had experience with is submitting to TWIC. I was the only individual in my department who stood firm. Taking up arms is magnitudes more serious. Actually pulling the trigger, harder still. It will take Sparticus reborn.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 08:28 PM
I think a state could succeed with several scenarios.

1. The best case would be for the courts to back up the states nullification efforts. I don't think this is likely, although I think its likely that the courts may PARTIALLY back up the states by narrowing the scope of what falls under the definition of interstate commerce, but I don't see the court radically changing it.

2. It's possible that even if the courts don't back up the state, that the state, by passively refusing to cooperate, makes it so damn difficult for the feds to operate that they eventually give up, sort of the way they are supposedly doing with medical marijuana states, or RFID.

3.Another scenario-a strong state governor, and either a liberty minded, or very weak President, and the President backs down from the state once they draw the line in the sand.

4.I guess the last option is essentially a civil war with the state. I don't see any single state defeating the fed militarily. But then again, Vietnam didn't defeat the US militarily and still won the war. Are the citizens OK with the feds killing the citizens in their neighboring states? Is the Army happy killing civilians? Just how bad does the federal government want to win? If the state ensure that at best the feds can only win a Pyrrhic victory, that would probably be sufficient for the state to prevail.

1) Federal courts. They will rule against the state.

2) Passive resistance. The worst kind. You've admitted you are in the inferior position. Nor condusive to winning.

3) Liberty minded president. We can hope. In fact we do. That's why we are here. However....

4) For the purposes of this scenario lets go with this. How could a state prevail, counter negative MSM etc. to achieve this goal?

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 08:33 PM
You will know a state is serious when it starts to rebuild its militia, calling on prior military service people to step forward and help defend the rights of the people.

When that happens, we'll "come out of the closet" and form the nucleus of companies and battalions.

Agreed. A states governor and legislature would need to issue a request for citizens to form militias. To actually encourage it. Now that in and of itself might might send a larger message to Washington.
Our writs are not toothless as our citizens are actually prepared to back it up.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2010, 08:35 PM
4) For the purposes of this scenario lets go with this. How could a state prevail, counter negative MSM etc. to achieve this goal?

Eh, the MSM in England held the revolutionaries in contempt back in 1776.

To some extent, they still do today.

You'll never "get" the MSM, so the best counter measure is to ignore them and bring people to the "alternative media".

To a great degree, this is already happening.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 08:36 PM
Gonna have to call it a night. Thanks for your input all and I'll check in tomorrow.

phill4paul
03-18-2010, 08:38 PM
Eh, the MSM in England held the revolutionaries in contempt back in 1776.

To some extent, they still do today.

You'll never "get" the MSM, so teh best counter measure is to ignore them and bring people to the "alternative media".

To a great degree, this is already happening.

Quite right and that is what I was thinking. Like the twitter accounts out of Iran, but with calculation.

raystone
03-18-2010, 09:18 PM
It won' t be a particular healthcare nullification act or something like a Firearms Freedom Act because the "political will" won't be there. The cause of a state/fed showdown will be the same thing that will cause a U.S. collapse --> currency collapse/hyperinflation. USSR broke up over money, Roman Empire broke up over money, it's always about the money supply.

Travlyr
03-19-2010, 06:50 AM
The feds win hands down.

How about county rights vs. state rights vs. federal law vs. international law?

World government is more likely to attempt the takeover of property rights, the disarmament of citizens, and trample on other individual liberties. This seems to be the direction that our political leaders want us to go.

GunnyFreedom
03-19-2010, 08:07 AM
Couple points to add in here,

Montana is bringing a suit and pushing it up to SCOTUS (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/2009/10/01/gun-groups-file-lawsuit-to-validate-montana-firearms-freedom-act/)to try the MTFFA in advance of a challenge.

North Carolina already has a State Guard org (http://www.ncstateguard.org/) that is unaffiliated with the National Guard or the Fed Gov in any way, shape or form. they are not the best solution, but they do already exist.

The key is 1) legislationg enforcement power to the governor, and 2) electing a Governor willing to use it. Much of the nullification progress is, again, incremental and therefore we are seeing baby steps.