This is the alleged quote President Andrew Jackson (D) when the Supreme Court decided Worcester v. Georgia
Worcester v. Georgia was about a law in Georgia which required state permission for a non native (Indian) to be on native lands. Worcester was a minister that lived with the Indians, was translating the bible into Cherokee, and in general trying to do good things. This was prior to the Trail of Tears.
The court found that it was unconstitutional and ordered Worcester freed. The state of Georgia refused. The federal government did nothing and the Supreme Court did not request federal law enforcement to do anything.
Due to a multitude of changes this was never pushed to an extreme and in 1832 Jackson said that the Supreme Court was the final say in what is Constitutional. Prior to that declaration, Jackson believed that the President and the Supreme Court were equal in that judgement.
So the question comes up, over and over again, what if the Supreme court decides that some part of gun control is unconstitutional and the states continue to enforce those laws?
Consider the following, somebody decides to make a select fire AR-15. I.e. they drill the fourth hole and put in all the right parts. They never take the gun out of state, they never cross state lines, they don’t do anything criminal with that firearm other than possessing it.
A state, like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York or California, arrests and charges this person under their assault weapons ban.
Instead of attacking just the assault weapons ban our defendant decides to attack the NFA and the AWB at the same time. Because the feds are lined up to prosecute him for the machine gun if the state doesn’t put him away. There is precedent for people being heard in court over the possibility of being charged. In first amendment cases this is called “a chilling effect”.
If you don’t know if a particular statement is protected speech you are unlikely to speak in fear of being prosecuted. So even if the law doesn’t explicitly deam your speech “illegal” the fact that it could be stretched to do so is enough for it to be considered an infringement of your rights.
This is the issue with “hate speech” regulations. Hate speech is always in the eyes of the victim. As such there is no way to know prior to making the statement how that person will interpret that word.
That exists right here, right now. If I put that word “here” to say that this word is currently considered hate speech, that one word could be used to label this entire site as “full of hate speech.” There was a professor that was on a overnight class trip. His students asked him a question and he responded using that word to say “don’t use ‘word'” Him saying don’t use it got him fired and canceled.
Regardless, in our example if it happens in California then the 9th circus hears the case and immediately decides that all is constitutional. The cases on the east coast go to different circuit courts which have already shown a tendency to believe that the state is right in balancing needs.
So it ends up in the Supreme Court where Justice Thomas gets to write another slapdown of the gun controllers.
The regent for Joe Biden, President for life, makes the statement “Hell Yes, we are taking those guns!” The gun infringing states then refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court opinion.
Thus the court can not get the federal government to intervene nor is the federal government going to send in the troops to enforce anything.
And here is where it gets dicey. We the People of these United States have given the government temporary power in limited form. We are not subjects. We are citizens.
First I expect there to be a huge amount of civil disobedience. Currently Connecticut is experiencing the larges act of civil disobedience known in the US. The number of “assault weapons” that were registered under the requirements of their AWB.
So there will be civil disobedience. Second, there are still a large number of Law Enforcement Officers that do believe in the constitution. They will refuse to enforce.
Finally, there will be deaths.
In the novel Friday by Robert A. Heinlein the constable got an “illegal” order and decided it was the right thing to do to go investigate and arrest. He “rushed” Friday and ended up dead.
There are going to be “go getter” types that want to do the gun grab. For some of them there will be death instead. For some gun owners there will be death. And it will get bloody.
One thought on “John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it”
Don’t worry even if you keep in intrastate the gov will find power under the commerce clause to argue you engaged in interstate commerce in the manufacture of the firearm.
Also, not relevant per say to your point but depending on the pre/post ban and registration status of the receiver, you may actually not violate either AWB in CT. I don’t think that’s ever been tested.
Login or register to comment.