Can a state refuse to enforce Federal Gun Laws?

[CivilDiscourse]

Can a state, interested in protecting the second amendment, refuse to enforce federal gun laws within it's borders?

For example:
Legalize the sale of guns within the state without the use of a background check.
Legalize the sale of weapons that are barred under federal law, such as automatic weapons.
Legalize the ownership of guns by convicted felons.
Bar state level (and lower) law enforcement agencies from providing any level of aid or cooperation with federal agents attempting to enforce the law.
Bar any state-level funding or computer systems to be used to aid in the tracking, apprehension, surveillance, or prosecution of federal fire-arm laws.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Legally, probably not.

Practically, they can just give lip service to enforcing them. My local paper had a long article about lax enforcement of our current gun laws. Makes me more reluctant to pass more laws until the current ones are enforced.

[Gondwanaland]

Can a state, interested in protecting the second amendment, refuse to enforce federal gun laws within it's borders?

For example:
Legalize the sale of guns within the state without the use of a background check.
Legalize the sale of weapons that are barred under federal law, such as automatic weapons.
Legalize the ownership of guns by convicted felons.
Bar state level (and lower) law enforcement agencies from providing any level of aid or cooperation with federal agents attempting to enforce the law.
Bar any state-level funding or computer systems to be used to aid in the tracking, apprehension, surveillance, or prosecution of federal fire-arm laws.

Given the precedent of sanctuary cities/states with undocumented immigrants, as well as state marijuana laws, certainly.

[Mountain Man]

If the states wished, they could operate as strict Constitutionalists and refuse to enforce any federal law, regulation, or edict that is not explicitly described by the Constitution. It's a concept I've heard referred to as "extreme federalism", and it's something I would love to see happen.

The solution to the scale of DC corruption is local and state action using the constitution, specifically the 10th amendment, against the advancing overreach of corrupt DC officials.

Extreme federalism is local and state government refusing to comply, totally ignoring, unconstitutional demands by the federal government. This approach can become visible in varying degrees of intensity. State laws protecting voting integrity is only one facet.

Beyond simple legislative push-back, imagine if the State of Texas refused to facilitate any task for the border visit by Kamala Harris. No Texas state trooper escorts, no security, no facilitation once the White House entourage exits the airport. Extreme federalism is the intentional use of the state right provisions outlined within the constitution to stop facilitating federal offices of any form or function.

Imagine if FBI field offices were forced to close by state action taking back ownership of the property by eminent domain. Imagine if state national guard elements were instructed not to comply with federal requests for support. Extreme federalism is local sheriffs, constitutional officers, rebuking unconstitutional decrees and refusing to comply with federal agencies.

Extreme federalism is executed along the same concept of “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states” defying federal law. However, extreme federalism is the reverse scenario where the unconstitutional efforts are identified by states who create sanctuaries for law-abiding citizens who forcefully demand representative government and self-determination.

Extreme federalism is a reaffirmation of the original intent of the United States constitution, and we do not need F-15s and nuclear weapons to achieve it. What we need is strong–will, brave state-level leadership and unrelenting citizen determination. We The People are the people we have been waiting for.

Parents and citizens confronting Marxist indoctrination within ideological school boards is one example. That is why the Feds & Media are fighting back against visible grassroot activity. They can sense this approach gaining wider acceptance as local populations see success in their efforts.

Local Sheriffs may soon align with the population they are sworn to protect and serve; that enhances the risk to the federal collective mindset.

State legislatures and State Governors taking back absolute control from federal overreach is a bottom up way for extreme federalism to have massive impact. Local congressional district elections are then fought-out based on the priority of the local community. Again, more original intent that is adverse to the federal collective.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-exactly-that/

[rogue06]

Given the precedent of sanctuary cities/states with undocumented immigrants, as well as state marijuana laws, certainly.

Beat me to it.

Of course, with those there has to be a certain level of a nod and a wink between the feds and the states.

[Ronson]

I don't believe a state is obligated to enforce any federal laws. In the past, when states shirked at enforcement, the feds would punish them by withholding or cutting back on related funding.

[seanD]

Can a state, interested in protecting the second amendment, refuse to enforce federal gun laws within it's borders?

For example:
Legalize the sale of guns within the state without the use of a background check.
Legalize the sale of weapons that are barred under federal law, such as automatic weapons.
Legalize the ownership of guns by convicted felons.
Bar state level (and lower) law enforcement agencies from providing any level of aid or cooperation with federal agents attempting to enforce the law.
Bar any state-level funding or computer systems to be used to aid in the tracking, apprehension, surveillance, or prosecution of federal fire-arm laws.

I would imagine there's nothing the Feds could do about it, even if it is, other than cut funding? I mean, unless the Feds send armed Feds in to enforce it and spark a civil war, what could do they really?

[Stoic]

Given the precedent of sanctuary cities/states with undocumented immigrants, as well as state marijuana laws, certainly.

Not to mention the precedent with gun laws.

[rogue06]

Not to mention the precedent with gun laws.

I'll bet there are a bunch more if you include jurisdictions that have passed laws more restrictive than permitted.

[Stoic]

I'll bet there are a bunch more if you include jurisdictions that have passed laws more restrictive than permitted.

Yeah, like with abortion.