, , , , ,

Is nullification of federal gun laws like we’ve seen in Kansas and other states constitutional? Well, here’s one of the Founders:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33

(Emphasis mine) — Since the Second Amendment is the only one that uses the term “…shall not be infringed…”, I’d say yes — the states have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws.

Not convinced that’s what they intended? Let’s try Hamilton in Federalist 78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.