Attorney: Idaho Gun Bill “Pointless”


5  Updated at 10:52 am, March 14th, 2013 By: Managing Editor
Share This Story


(IDAHO FALLS, ID) – An Idaho Falls attorney is speaking out against a state bill that would prohibit local police from enforcing federal gun control measures. Laurie Gaffney says the legislation is pointless because it violates police oaths and the Constitution’s supremacy clause. The bill passed a House vote on Monday. Rep. Linden Batemen of Idaho Falls, who supported the measure, says the state is not responsible for enforcing federal laws.

Stories You May Be Interested In:

EAST IDAHO NEWSMAKERS: The owners of Fin Fun

21 May 2017

Nate Eaton,

East Idaho Aquarium to open later this summer

24 May 2017

Natalia Hepworth,

  • NoFreeLunches

    I would never hire Ms. Gaffney if I needed an attorney, she obviously cannot read and/or comprehend the Constitution. Just because the feds make a law, does not mean it is automatically supreme, only if it is in pursuance of a power they have been specifically enumerated by the Constitution. The supremecy clause states “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, . . . shall be the supreme law of the land”. Obviously the 2nd Amendment, which clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is a part of the Constitution. Therefore, a law that infringes on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional and not valid law. Likewise, the oaths that officers swear to uphold the Constitution include upholding ALL of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, so they would be violating their oaths if they did assist the feds in confiscating weapons, not the opposite as Ms. Gaffney asserts. Fortunately, many of our Sheriffs across the state understand the Constitution much better than Ms. Gaffney and have stated that they will uphold the Constitution and protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

    • Nom Deguerre

      I’ll believe the idea of sheriffs protecting my rights and liberties when I see it. The Idaho Falls sheriff has been questioned on what he would do when it comes to enforcing tyrannical laws from the Feds. He won’t come out as doing anything other then whatever the Feds want of him. Your masters are tyrants, not defenders of liberty fellow Idahoans.

    • Didactic

      NoFreeLunches, I think that Laurie is just pointing out that the Supreme Law of the land is the constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties. The supremacy clause means that states can’t decide on an individual basis which items in federal law that they will or won’t agree to. A state (such as Idaho) can disagree with changes to the constitution (such as laws that change our right to bear arms), but the idea of nullification has been rejected by the Supreme Court. So, Idaho can’t just say “we will nullify that change because we don’t agree with it.”

      I’m not saying that I don’t believe in the right to keep and bear arms, I am just pointing out that Laurie Gaffney’s interpretation of the law is consistent with The Supreme Courts’s view.

      • NoFreeLunches

        Didactic, you continue to fall into the same fallacy that Ms. Gaffney does, that federal law is supreme, even if it clearly does not have authority to make such law under the constitution. You keep leaving out the phrase “which shall be made in pursuance thereof” which is a very important phrase in that clause of the Constitution. Otherwise any law the feds made, no matter how ridiculous would be the law of the land. Clearly that is not what the founder intended. You assert that the Supreme Court has rejected nullification, but the case most people point to as authoritative in allowing the Supreme Court to make such rulings is Marbury v Madison. It that case, if you will read the opinion, it clearly points out that ANY law the federal government makes which is beyond the specifically enumerated powers in the U. S. Constitution is “null, void and of no force or effect” upon the states and the people. Furthermore, the founders had just fought a war to separate themselves from one overbearing government, they were very sensitive to aligning themselves with another one, that is why the Constitution had such a difficult time being ratified. Nobody in their right mind believed at that time the Constitution gave the federal government the right to determine the limits of its own power, that would be absurd and a recipe for unlimited usurpation. They clearly believed that each individual state, as a party to the Constitution, had the power to judge for itself whether the federal government had overstepped its bounds. Furthermore, more recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a couple of times that the federal government cannot force the states to enforce their laws or regulations. You can say nullification is not viable, but it is being done all the time, just look at how far the feds are getting with their REAL ID law. 34 states have refused to implement it, and it is dead for all intents and purposes, even though it continues to be the “law of the land”.

  • So the 10th amendment only applies to certain things .. We won’t pay attention to federal gun laws , but when it comes to medical marijuana , state rights don’t mean a thing .. If we are going to push state rights it should apply to ALL issues facing Idaho, if it’s the will of the PEOPLE of the state not the Politicians sitting up on capital hill spending our tax money telling us that our vote is worthless ..