Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Can a state veto a federal action?

This and a Confedration of like minded states could gain traction and be something to contend with.

There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:

United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).


A State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), but a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.


For an example of these principles applied to state marijuana laws, see Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted

...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

A Kansas law similar to the Montana law cited in the OP didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.

That's not quite 100%. State laws make it legal under state law, so there's no question of whether to apply state resources to apprehend users.

Unless the state authorizes its LEO to help the Feds enforce Federal laws.

Frankly, I think we need to simply quit worrying about what the "supreme" court says.

[quote=steve4102]There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:

United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).


A State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), but a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.


For an example of these principles applied to state marijuana laws, see Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted

...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

A Kansas law similar to the Montana law cited in the OP didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.


Again, if the (Federal) Supreme Court is violating the constitution, then why would the state be bound to recognize this? I think not.

Then there’s states who’s legal folks actually confound and subvert federal officials, e.g., California and illegals vs ICE.

It can be done.

Your last paragraph.
The scotus is the end of the line, legally. There’s no arbiter to officially gauge what’s constitutional beyond that.

It would come down to simple civil disobedience.
Which seems to work pretty well for some.

How does S/S and Medicare fit into this discussion?

It would come down to withholding federal funds, the same way other federal laws have been forced on states

That’s the problem, laws are enforceable and Constitutional until they are not.

The way our system was set up, legislative branch make laws, the Judicial Branch determines if said laws are Constitutional or not. Thats the process.

If the Judicial Branch is no longer capable, or willing to uphold the Constitution, then it’s up to We The People to right that wrong. The reason for the Second is front and center, but are we there yet?

Didn’t seem to hurt California, Colorado, etc.

Funds were not held from them, were they.

Trump was sued and it never happened, nobody is going to successfully sue The Biden/McConnell Administration.

The feds can take down any state simply by closing the checkbook. Remember how Carter forced the states to go to a 55 mph speed limit simply by withholding highways funds.

I believe they did the same thing with age 18 alcohol purchase/use.