- No mas: Principal bans Spanish language in intercom announcement
- Hacking software could put ‘zombie drone army’ in user’s hands
- Support for stricter gun laws drops: poll
- 10 whales dead, 41 others stranded in Everglades
- John Boehner faces bipartisan pressure to allow gay-rights vote
- Martin Bashir resigns from MSNBC over ‘ill-judged’ comments about Sarah Palin
- Rep. Duncan Hunter: While Obama prays for Iranian change, U.S. should ready its nukes
- Best company ever? Veteran Beer Co. exists to employ vets, provide quality beer
- Iran official: Sanctions ‘utterly failed’ to stop nuclear program
- ‘Black Santa’ display at IU sparks student outrage
Obama’s gun control push moves states to fight it
Even as some governors and mayors eye tighter restrictions on firearms in the wake of the Connecticut school shootings, state legislators across the country are launching pre-emptive strikes against federal gun control proposals that may never even make it through Congress.
More than half of the states have seen lawmakers push measures to make any new federal gun restrictions illegal within the states or exempt firearms made and sold within the states from federal regulation.
The push, supporters say, is a direct response to President Obama’s proposed controls, which include bans on military-style semi-automatic firearms, high-capacity ammunition magazines, universal background checks for gun purchasers, and 23 executive actions, many of which are directives to federal agencies.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe said he took his cue from a proposal in Wyoming called the Firearm Protection Act that would invalidate any federal restrictions on firearms or gun magazines.
“When I saw what was happening with [Mr.] Obama and [Vice President Joseph R.] Biden, we thought it would be a good idea to do something similar in Pennsylvania” to what Wyoming has done, Mr. Metcalfe said. “We wanted to send a strong, clear message, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Mr. Metcalfe’s legislation would prohibit enforcement of any new federal restrictions on guns or ammunition and require the state to intercede against any federal attempt to register, restrict or ban guns that are currently legal.
Farther west, Oklahoma state Sen. Nathan Dahm has received national — and international — attention for a speech last month at a Second Amendment rally that has been viewed more than 51,000 times on YouTube. Mr. Dahm introduced several bills on the Second Amendment, including one that would declare any federal acts or orders on guns to be invalid in the state.
Mr. Dahm, however, said he wasn’t expecting the attention. He also made sure to point out that bills were introduced before the shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., nearly two months ago, and his 2nd Amendment Preservation Act was introduced before Mr. Obama rolled out his proposals.
“This is not a call to arms — it’s a call to action,” he said. “I’ve gotten comments from as far away as Russia, Puerto Rico. If we didn’t have those weapons, we’d still be speaking English with an accent. We’d still be drinking tea and paying huge taxes for it.”
Some states, like New York, have gone the opposite route and jumped out in front of anything Mr. Obama or Congress may do. Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently signed into law the country’s strictest gun regulations, including bans on military-style, semiautomatic firearms and ammunition magazines that hold more than seven bullets — even more stringent than Mr. Obama’s threshold of 10.
But Wyoming, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma are certainly not alone in pushing back against federal proposals — state legislators in at least 26 states have proposed similar legislation.
Virginia state Delegate Robert G. Marshall’s bill included a slight twist. State police would not be allowed to assist in any prosecution or investigations of federal gun laws in the state.
The bill was not expected to have a direct fiscal impact on the state, but according to state police, if federal grant funding was removed in response to gun-related initiatives, the state could risk losing nearly $800,000.
Mr. Marshall, Prince William Republican, was incensed that the bill was effectively killed for the year, saying the fiscal impact statement was brought to him at the last minute and the state shouldn’t be concerned with what the federal government may or may not give them anyway.
“So what if we lost that?” he said. “If the federal government is so stupid to coerce us into accepting this 30 pieces of silver, I’d say reject the money.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at email@example.com.
- Support for stricter gun laws drops: poll
- Scientists could unlock mystery of life beyond Earth within a decade
- House Democrats give grudging support to 10-year gun ban extension
- Extending plastic gun ban just first step?
- Obama hints at staying in D.C. after leaving office
Latest Blog Entries
By Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar
Bad science puts rich nations on the hook for trillions in climate liabilities
- Angry NTSB ousts railroad union from N.Y. train crash site
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Puerto Rico caravan honoring Paul Walker ends in 6 drunken-driving arrests, 72 speeding tickets
- Apple wins facial recognition patent for iPhone 6
- Xbox One, Playstation 4 games penalize users for cursing in their own homes
- First Dog Sunny knocks down Ashtyn Gardner; Michelle Obama yanks leash
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- HURT: Postal Service misses address by a whole continent
- Allen West warns Obamas backdoor gun control is moving forward
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Wall Street news for retail investors who want to know what's going on.
Does it take over 25 years in public service to really know what goes on in Washington?
Despite cynicism about the law, it can provide you justice, protection, and ensure your rights.