Pennsylvania House Bill 357 was introduced by Daryl Metcalfe (R). It is an act providing that any Federal law which attempts to register, restrict or ban a firearm or limit the size of a magazine of a firearm in this Commonwealth shall be unenforceable in this in Commonwealth and imposing penalties. The supporters of this act cite Article 1 Section 21 of the Pa. Constitution which clearly states the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned. It is called the Right to Bear Arms Act. If the law is enacted it would mean that anyone, including Federal agents, who try to enforce any type of gun control restrictions within state borders would face arrest and be charged with a felony offense.
Opponents of the bill are citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that Federal laws are supreme and only Federal courts can say otherwise. The Supremacy Clause states that U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes and U.S. treaties and the supreme law of the land. The text provides that these are highest forms of law in the U.S legal system and mandates that all state judges must follow Federal law when a conflict arises between Federal law and either states Constitution or state law of any state. The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and supreme so as those laws were adopted in pursaunce of, that is consistent with, the Constitution. Nullification is the legal theory that the states have the rights to nullify or invalidate Federal law which they view as being unconstitutional or Federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congesses Constitutional authorized power. The,supreme court rejected this nullification, that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare Federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to Federal courts and that states do not have authority to nullify Federal laws.
So for Pennsylvania lawmakers to throw a Federal agent in jail for enforcing Federal laws is actually breaking Constitutional law. So state legislatures are saying that Federal law trumping state law is unconstitutional. To which I argue does that not invalidate the Constitution of the U.S. The Federal government governs states as a whole. If you decide to part from the U.S. Constitution you are breaking the laws of the land and,should be aressted. Government should then have the right to cut off funding to a state government that refuses to follow Constitutional law.Republicans claim to be its protectors, but Democrats work harder to preserve it. Just because you dont like a law doesnt mean you dont have to follow it.
Posted from WordPress for Android