South Carolina: New Bill Would Build Foundation for Federal Gun Confiscation Block

South Carolina Republican Representative Stewart Jones (Laurens) filed House Bill 4704 near the end of November, and according to The Tenth Amendment Center, the bill would take a big step towards creating a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of any future federal gun control.

“Passage into law would represent an important foundational step toward undermining federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state,” wrote Mike Maharrey.

The bill, like many others being considered around the country, is titled “Second Amendment Preservation Act.”

The legislation would ban the allocation of public funds, personnel, or property for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any executive orders, presidential directives or acts of the United States Congress passed after Jan. 1, 2020, that regulate the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.

While treasonous US senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham have attacked over half the Bill of Rights with his siding with President Donald Trump in advancing red flag laws, several members of the South Carolina House wrote to all the members proclaiming the red flag laws advanced by Trump were “gross violations” of the Bill of Rights.

“Unfortunately, there is now talk about pushing federal funding to states that will enforce red flag laws and potentially other gun confiscation methods. I am calling on state legislators across the United States to send a message to the federal government by passing the Second Amendment Preservation Act in order to prohibit any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms … The Founding Fathers warned us to never trade liberty for security, but that is exactly what is happening before our very eyes.”

South Carolina would not be the first state to push this legislation through.  Others have already signed it into law.

The Tenth Amendment Center provides the basis for the legislation:

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”

Some gun-rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.

LEGAL BASIS

The state of South Carolina can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Here’s the problem we will be facing.  When these gun confiscators ultimately decide to go for the guns, they won’t be looking to the states to help them.  They will be looking for United Nations troops to aide them in that matter.

As we’ve reported previously, the UN is on American soil, and even have claimed taxpayer funded buildings as “international territory” and refused freedom of the press to certain journalists covering their Communist agenda in Salt Lake.

• UN Takes Over Utah Taxpayer-Funded Venue – Claims It’s “International Territory” & Shuts Down Journalists (Video)
• The United Nations Claims American Taxpayer Purchased Facilities As “International Territory” – But These Guys Are Fighting Back!

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media