I came across this very interesting piece of news. Mississippi and Texas proposed and called for bills to make it illegal to enforce any of the new federal gun control measures.
Mississippi Governor Bryant called for a bill that would make it illegal for state and local enforcement to enforce any executive order from the President. Similarly, in Texas, State Representative Toth introduced the “Firearms Protection Act.” The bill would make “any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries” and “anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.”
The question is, of course, how would a federal statute or executive decision interact with the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The second amendment provides,
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court’s most indicative decisions call for an interesting debate. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can enforce several restrictions on the right to bear arms. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886) (upholding the state’s or Congress’s regulation of militias); Miller v. Texas, 135 US 535 (1894) (upholding the state’s ability to press criminal charges for owning an unlicensed gun); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1897) (upholding state’s regulation of concealed weapons); and United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939) (upholding the National Firearms Act which banned the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons).
This, however, does not mean that we would know to what extent a regulation would be constitutional.