‘Fascinating…’

…said First Officer Spock as he raised one eyebrow.

It may be that some people in the government class are beginning to “get it” but we’ll have to remain vigilant and see. An “emergency bill” in Idaho to nullify federal gun laws has passed without a single “nay” vote. It’s now up to Governor Marshmallow.

“It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

News article here.

The act applies only to future federal encroachments, and so the language, “…protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed…to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights…” has a grandfather clause in effect. It means, quite literally and specifically, that violating the Oath of Office and citizens’ rights is perfectly OK (and maybe even laudable) so long as said violations have existing laws, etc. as a pretext.

I suppose we can take this as a sign of progress, but we need to be careful and not celebrate too enthusiastically. Happy Days are not here again, innocent people are still in jail, the guilty are still being paid out of our pockets, and the skies above are rather cloudy. I don’t believe that anyone in government “gets it”, so much as they’re merely able to see which way a gale is blowing. Still, there is hope.

6 thoughts on “‘Fascinating…’

  1. Then again, if it’s a new executive order claimed to be under authority of an existing law, that’s still an “executive order … promulgated on or after the effective date of this act”.
    Indeed, a hopeful sign.

  2. I don’t put much hope in any government anymore. The government of Connecticut is facing a political “Sandy Hook” hurricane, and they haven’t cut and run yet.

    • Oh, we (though I currently live just over the border in WA) will never forget, though I believe that, for the Ruby Ridge attack, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was used as its rationale. The excuse, if I remember correctly, was a small fraction of an inch in the length of a shotgun. In that case this new law would have made no difference.

      If a president and his Justice Department feel like killing a few people, they’ll make up a reason, make it sound good, and 80 to 95% of the people will go along with it so long as that president and his or her Justice Department are Democrats. The only thing Idaho could have done would be call out the state National Guard to surround the Feds (but by them the son had already been killed) knowing that after such a stunt there were going to be reprisals against the state. Maybe a dozen or two dozen private citizens “black-flagging” it might have made a difference, but again; a Democrat that needs to kill some people to try to maintain his anti-white supremacist street creds WILL do some pretty horrible things. The party of the KKK has a lot to “prove” to keep its current hold on certain voting blocks, and as I’ve been saying; the very corrupt will always see the honest, strong, principled, armed citizen as the biggest threat to their power, no matter the race, color or creed. Ruby Ridge was therefore a twofer.

      We’d need some united force, founded purely on principle, to thwart a strongly desired political murder like that one. One strong governor could have put an end, at least to the stand-off, easily, but in the meantime, as then, we have a fairly classic 20th century Republican (Progressive) in Boise.

  3. At least this type of “state supremacy” law has an actual chance of survining judicial review, since it merely prohibits state officers from being forced to enforce federal laws that conflict with Idaho laws and state constitution.

    First, the feds are not allowed to draft state officers to do federal work on the state’s dime, and second, the AZ immigration case makes it clear that states AREN’T ALLOWED to enforce federal law. . . or so can be argued, using the Obama Administration’s own SCOTUS arguments. . .

  4. Pingback: Quote of the day—Mike Maharrey | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.