Federal law: the Second Amendment and HB 1052


In 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own firearms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution in District of Columbia v. Heller, stating any executive action by the current administration or act of Congress to infringe upon that right would be a violation of the Supreme Court's decision; specifically including that any effort by the federal government to require the registration of legally possessed firearms or ammunition would be an infringement on the Second Amendment; any effort by the federal government to confiscate or require the mandated sale of legally possessed or transferred firearms would be an infringement upon the Second Amendment; that any tax, fee, or required stamp specifically on firearms or ammunition not common to all other goods would be an infringement on the Second Amendment.

Therefore, for those of us who believe in our oath to uphold the federal law of the Constitution as outlined in the Second Amendment, and that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review which upheld the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia v. Heller, this bill not only makes sense, but is proactive and clarifies within the State of South Dakota that any action by a state agency, political subdivision, or any or elected or appointed official, employee of this state or of a political subdivision to contract with or to provide assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, regulation, or executive order, which imposes a prohibition, restriction, or requirement that does not exist under the laws of the state and relates to the stale, transfer, ownership, or possession of: A firearm, or any component or accessory; or ammunition, or any component or accessory would be in direct violation of not only the Second Amendment but also the Supreme Court's decision.

Even if you toss federal law out the window and ignore the powers of the Supreme Court, you can still examine the main difference between any state and federal law, which is supposed to be who makes the law, who prosecutes someone who violates the law, and what the penalty is for breaking the law. Our state agencies and employees, our elected officials, and our tax dollars should not be utilized within the State of South Dakota to enforce any unconstitutional laws.

We face risks to our laws and how they are interpreted and understood in the United States. A brief example could be for anyone who's been in an airport lately- all you hear are announcements for complying with "federal law", ordering that anyone inside of the airport or on any airplane must adhere to federal law and abide by mandatory mask mandates. While the mask mandate is based on an executive order and directives from the CDC, it does not meet the requirements for federal law, which can only be duly enacted by Congress pursuant to one of its limited powers. However, that is how these mandates are being presented and interpreted by the public- from loudspeaker announcements to posted signs throughout facilities that compliance is "federal law."

The Second Amendment is an actual, Bonafide federal law. It should not be "superseded" by state laws and city laws, and we need to prevent the United States from acquiescing to the term federal law being used in situations to which it does not apply.

Please support the federal law of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and protect our state resources from being utilized to enact anything unconstitutional. I urge your support of HB 1052, prime sponsored in the House by Representative Aylward, and prime sponsored in the Senate by me. This bill was heard in South Dakota House Judiciary Committee 1/26/22 and has been deferred for a second hearing until 2/14/22. This is your opportunity to contact members of the South Dakota House of Representatives to voice your support.


To read the bill, click here.


Federal law? The mask mandate is a different conversation, but we cannot throw around the phrase federal law in situations to which it does not apply. A false federal law should never hold more credence than an actual federal law.



56 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All