![Lawrence Love, draped in an U.S. flag, demonstrates outside of the Alaska Capitol in support of the 2nd Amendment as part of a nationwide show of support on Friday. Love said, "If we lose the 2nd Amendment, we lose them all."](http://jun-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11970685.jpg "Lawrence Love, draped in an U.S. flag, demonstrates outside of the Alaska Capitol in support of the 2nd Amendment as part of a nationwide show of support on Friday. Love said, "If we lose the 2nd Amendment, we lose them all."")
JUNEAU — A handful of Alaska lawmakers have thrust their state into the national debate over gun control by setting up a showdown with the federal government that some consider treasonous and others defend as patriotic.
They say that unlike people in most of the rest of the nation, many Alaskans use firearms on a daily basis and that any regulation attempt by the federal government represents an undue encroachment on their constitutional rights.
In response to the perceived threat of a sweeping reaction from Washington, D.C., to recent mass shootings — including the rampages in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. — they’ve proposed legislation that would make any new federal law limiting gun rights unenforceable in Alaska, using “nullification bills.”
Such measures, which have always been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, make it a state crime to enforce federal law and have been blamed for inflaming some of the nation’s most turbulent eras — including touching off the Civil War.
Supporters who have pushed such legislation in defense of gun rights this year — including lawmakers in 16 other states, mostly in the South and West —say the bills are necessary to fight back against federal overreach and that the U.S. Constitution demands they take such action.
“Federal courts have often leaned toward favoring federal power over state sovereignty in spite of the fact that our Founding Fathers clearly intended otherwise,” said Alaska Republican state Rep. Wes Keller, in his sponsor statement of his bill that challenges federal authority.
“It is an illogical perversion of one of our most important founding principles to presume states must comply with unconstitutional federal language,” he added.
Opponents also point to the Constitution to say that the nation is hinged in part on the notion that federal law trumps state law, protecting civil rights, voting rights and other liberties Americans have come to expect.
“States cannot effectively ignore or countermand federal law,” says Hugh Spitzer, a professor of law at the University of Washington.
In order to challenge federal authority, Spitzer said, states have to challenge the constitutionality of a given law before the Supreme Court, “or they can try to get their senators or congressmen to repeal the federal law, or they can try to secede from the United States.”
He added later that the debate was settled with the Civil War.
Across the nation, many nullification bills already have died. And many others appear headed for a similar fate, but the recent advance highlights an increasingly vigorous political fight that centers on this question: When it comes to big-picture topics, whose right is it to decide?
In Alaska, the two Republican-sponsored joint resolutions making their way through the state House and Senate, clearly aim to make the case that gun rights are a state-level issue. The proposals seek to have President Barack Obama rescind the 23 executive actions on gun violence he signed on Jan. 16, about a month after the Connecticut school shooting.
Obama’s executive orders address mental health issues and provide authorities more training, among other provisions. None of the orders specifically mention restricting gun ownership or banning certain types of weapons or accessories.
Additional proposals are being discussed in Congress, but no measures have advanced. Still, the Obama administration has become a magnet for criticism among gun rights supporters.
“We as a culture tend to overreact to crazies,” said Republican state Sen. Fred Dyson.
He added, “There’s quite a bit of activity in Congress to regulate firearms, and all of us worry that that’s headed toward registration.”
To those who hold such concerns, people who would restrict gun rights simply cannot empathize with their lifestyle.
“Here in Alaska, firearms are tools to us,” said Jim West, owner of the Wild West Guns, which has locations in Anchorage and Las Vegas. “We carry them around for bear protection. We feed our families with them.”
Another Alaska measure, proposed by GOP House Speaker Mike Chenault, calls for criminal penalties for authorities who try to enforce federal regulations in the state that would assert control over firearms.
“Tragedy is not a license for federal encroachment on constitutionally protected freedoms,” Chenault said in a statement.
It’s unclear whether the proposals have a chance of passing.
“The devil is in the details,” said Republican state Sen. John Coghill, speaking about Chenault’s measure. He was reluctant to speculate, but said the issue “is probably a hot enough topic where enough people would agree on some statement.”
Jerry McBeath, a professor of political science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, however, said Chenault’s bill is “clearly unconstitutional.”
Spitzer, the Washington law professor, explains some of the historical context of such measures.
Proponents of nullification 200 years ago “took the position that the United States was created by the states,” he said.
“Daniel Webster, who debated against nullification, took the position that the United States was formed by the people of the United States, not the states,” Spitzer added, citing the first line of the Constitution.
“And that difference — between whether the United States was formed by the states, or was formed by all the people of the United States — is the fundamental difference that was fought over in the Civil War,” he said. “The North won, that is the end of it. Period.”
The nullification debate still cycles every so often. Such bills have been used to defend school segregation during the 1950s and laws that seek to overrule federal authority over marijuana have advanced more recently.
As gun rights prompt the latest round of debates, House Majority Leader Rep. Lance Pruitt promises that the issue won’t distract the state Legislature from their priorities this session — oil production, cheaper energy for Alaskans and the economy.
“I think one of the things that’s been important to both members of our caucus as well as Alaskans is to maintain that Second Amendment right” to bear arms, Pruitt said at a press conference last month.
“We will do whatever we can to defend that right,” he said. But if no new legislation passes on the issue lawmakers will not “feel that we failed.”
McBeath, the Alaska Fairbanks professor, says this sort of legislation can be expected every so often, even if it ultimately goes nowhere.
Politicians “do some grandstanding every once in a while,” he said. “It’s symbolic.”
Comments (76)
Add commentThe second amendment doesn't
The second amendment doesn't say the Feds can't regulate guns. Just says you have the right to have them.
Yes it goes nowhere but the
Yes it goes nowhere but the image is devastating for our state.
Folks like Mike Chenault are an embarrassment to our state. These sorts of narrow minded ignorant views coming from our so called law makers hurt our economy more than anything. What "new" progressive industry wants to move here with that sort of talk?
Very true
“We as a culture tend to overreact to crazies”
Great quote
Ah Lawrence...what about the flag code?
§176. Respect for flag
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.
They are wrapped up in
They are wrapped up in themselves.
Hmm..
There's something wrong with wearing a flag?
I think it's pretty cool.
wait..
We might lose the second ammendment?? Since when???
Since...
[ We might lose the second ammendment?? Since when??? ]
“We as a culture tend to overreact to crazies”
Since...
Edit - wish you could delete double ups...
Comment
I find what Speaker Chenault has said on his legislation to be cogent and thoughtful. I think the legislation has much merit. I am proud that this Alaskan is Speaker of the House. Mike Chenault and his people are the people responsible for developing Alaska such that the jobs and economy we have today can be enjoyed by all. Only the Thespians and lesbians of Juneau are embarrassed and distressed by this, and I am sorry that Obama didn't offer every one of you a job in DC.
I think that anyone expecting a different viewpoint from the Senate President will be disappointed. Moreover, the private sector endorses these states rights and citizens rights ideologies over what the White House tries to do and is currently trying to do. Industry finds Alaska to be a safe haven for its workers. We are too much ruled by attorneys - including those that work in the Capitol Building.
Not enough work to do this
Not enough work to do this session? This is unbelievable. What a bunch of clowns.
Rights
Interesting, according to an old Empire article, Mr Love was involved in a group fighting the City's decision to allow benefits to domestic partners. Why am I not surprised that he would stand out there, wearing a flag to protest what is a perceived myth.
1/3 of the session is over
and what do we have to show for it? A group of fools who apparently have noting to do but enter 2nd amendment debates rather than getting anything productive done. Soon we will hear the cries over how the session is just not long enough and they'll be coming back for more special sessions.
I also find the wearing of the flag as offensive. While it may be viewed as freedom of speech that does not remove the insult I see.
For our Constitutional scholars: please stop identifying everything as an executive order. An executive order is a very specific thing, not simply any comment made by the president. In the case of the President's referrals to congress on firearms it was not an executive order. If it were the debate would be over and his recommendations enacted when he issued it.
While I disagree with those who say all gun control is bad
These people are American citizens and I fully support their right and duty to defend what they think they must. Let the best ideas win.
"Courage is knowing what not to fear." -Plato
Mike
/edited
good
Touche...
On a serious matter, we're not losing the second ammendment. I can't say the word "bomb" in the airport but does that mean that i've completely lost my first ammendment rights?? You want to talk about an overreaction, look at this stories photo...
Educate me
While I will admit that I haven't been following this discussion as much as many, I guess I am at a bit of a loss. I don't recall (please correct me on this) where the 2nd amendment is being (or an attempt is underway to do so) nullified. My understanding (limited as it may be) is that the proposal is to increase requirements for the sale and purchase of fire arms, reduce the second hand sale through non-licensed distribution means (i.e. 3rd party to 3rd party) and the inclusion of some limitations on clip size. Has any mention been made to actually take guns back or make any of them illegal to own at this time?
Am I correct in my understanding? It is difficult to muddle through all of the left and right rants to get to the actual proposal/truth.
Insights welcome.
The point.....
Love's picture is the Empire's issue; gun rights are everyone's issue. Let's stick to the point; I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms!!
@Mike
To me, there is a difference between protesting fact-based issues or perpetuating a falsehood. I dont find the picture cool (which is what you originally wrote), I find it sad. What it represents to me is ignorance but I guess when have Legislators contributing to the fear-mongering & falsehoods, what do we expect.
Rainak you are correct.
Rainak you are correct.
There is no threat to the second amendment.
putting words to a face
Quote from Lawrence Love:
"An intellectual
Go figure you types always know what is best for all,and nobody has a say in it.Looks like Obama is doing you a favor eh!!!
The Constitution was set up so a very few powerful intellectuals could not be able to control the masses with their know better than you attitude.
This is why there are so many obsticles to get any type of change.
It is a crying shame that the corruption that is going on in our country is still being ignored as oh well we cannot do anything about it,uh yea right pussification of a country."
Now he's wearing the American Flag as a symbol... for his fear? This guy is pure lunacy.
snagger
I dont think there is anyone commenting here that does not support the right for someone to own a gun...
Just don't understand the issue
My father in law owns more guns than S&W and the Charleston Heston estate, and he doesn't seem at all concerned, yet there are people screaming on both sides.
for everyone's record-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-propo...
Conservative Justice Scalia
Conservative Justice Scalia wrote, "Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
In 2010, two years after Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment's protections, whatever their limits, apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3026, 3042 (2010). In McDonald, the Court struck down a Chicago law that banned handguns in the home. However, it confirmed statements made in Heller that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and that many longstanding handgun regulations are "presumptively lawful." The Court also noted that the doctrine of "incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."
The Fourteenth Amendment
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that had held that black people could not be citizens of the United States.
Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.
"None of the orders
"None of the orders specifically mention restricting gun ownership or banning certain types of weapons or accessories."
NONE.
Hmm..
This threat to gun ownership and freedom is real and the worst has recently happened. Just read the recent gun law passed in NY state. It's straight out of the worst of nazi germany.
It completely infringes on law abiding citizens and will accomplish nothing. It was passed in a fascist manner by a leftist governor who strong armed it and forced it through because he had the upper hand. No time for amendments or debate.
What you fear about loss of the second amendment is very real. Learn from what is right in front of you - don't give an inch to these bast...ds.
Nothing will be accomplished in NY except maybe they'll cut the number of rabbit hunters in half and give youth and adults even more reason to not get outside. That and honest citizens will get killed at the hands of criminals.
Hmm
Dont ya just feel the love!!
Got ya talkin!!
Hmm
Dont ya just feel the love!!
Got ya talkin!!
Hmm
Dont ya just feel the love!!
Got ya talkin!!
OK
Dont ya just feel the love!!
Got ya talkin!!