, , , ,

Supporters of HB436, the happily defunct gun bill that sought to nullify federal gun legislation, have been defending it from hostile criticism that it would prohibit state and local officials from cooperating with federal officials by self-righteously proclaiming that it is only directed at “unconstitutional” legislation. This rather simple-minded defense leaves me with a couple of questions:

— First, if the federal laws to be targeted are unconstitutional, why didn’t these bozos take the issue to court – surely, if they are correct about the constitutional status of federal gun laws in question, they would be vindicated in the court system. Isn’t this the way we do it in this constitutional democracy they seem to be so keen on?  

— Second, since it’s very likely that HB436 itself is blatantly unconstitutional – many of those who considered voting for it even admitted as much – does it mean that, if it had passed, local officials could be arrested for enforcing its provisions? Or is it just federal laws that these GOP legal experts deem susceptible to nullification if Uncle Jim Bob thinks they’re unconstitutional?

Just asking.