Press "Enter" to skip to content

SB 129: Castleberry Gets Secession Rolling with Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Let secession begin! Senator Jessica Castleberry (R-35/Rapid City) is pushing Senate Bill 129, which would nullify federal law, executive orders, court orders, taxes, and other directives of the United States of America in South Dakota.

Of course, Senator Castleberry and her 31 co-sponsoring Republican secessionists (Dennert, Perry, the Greenfields, Crabtree, Pischke, Tobin…) say they are only applying their nullification to federal mandates related to guns, so this little foray into Fort Sumterism is o.k., right?

SB 129 orders the Attorney General to sue the federal government over any measure enacted or imposed after January 1, 2021, that does anything faintly restrictive to guns, ammunition, ammo-reloading gear, or any related parts or accessories (holsters! glitter gun purses!), like taxes, levies, fees, and stamps; registration or tracking requirements; restrictions on owning, using, or selling guns; or mass confiscation. Upon the filing of such a suit, all public officials in South Dakota shall refuse to attempt to enforce those federal actions.

In other words, the Legislature, through the Attorney General, assumes the power of the federal judiciary to issue a blanket injunction against an entire set of federal laws, regulations, and orders, with no hearing or other due process.

Yeah, y’all better up the appropriation to the extraordinary litigation fund. Pass SB 129, and U.S. Attorney General (eventually) Merrick Garland and the first federal judge given contact with this nullification act will come down on us like a ton of Constitutional bricks.

19 Comments

  1. Mark Anderson 2021-02-04

    Gosh, South Dakota which receives more than it pays to the feds wants its freedom. I’m sure the feds would love to turn over highway costs, move the airforce base, and my personal favorire the dam costs to the state. Why bother with social security, the list is endless. Its great to start the day off with a good laugh.

  2. o 2021-02-04

    Mark, my thoughts exactly!

  3. Donald Pay 2021-02-04

    Mark Anderson, Exactly. We blue and purple states provide for ourselves AND the deadbeat State of South Dakota. They couldn’t last a year without the federal teat in their mouth. Let them have their guns. Give me back my tax money.

  4. jake 2021-02-04

    Yeah, but it’s not laughable when we the people of this state have to live under legislative officials that think up and put forth these seditious and secessionist proposed laws. Isn’t she one of Noem’s picks as a replacement legislator?
    She joins the likes of MGT (Marjorie Taylor Greene) of Congress with this legislative nothing-burger.
    But, her stupidity will probably be forgotten if she runs again unless the “R” by her name becomes as toxic as it should, given the “R”s position in DC and her one-party corruption of South Dakota.
    The “Virus of Lies” of the GOP is so putrid.

  5. mike from iowa 2021-02-04

    Wasn’t Castleberry the the gun humping freak from “Police Academy” movie fame?

  6. mike from iowa 2021-02-04

    Nevermind, that was Tackleberry. My bad.

  7. bearcreekbat 2021-02-04

    Have Castleberry and her supporters of this particular waste of tax dollars addressed this slight detail?

    . . . the laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    U.S. Const., Article VI, paragraph 2.

    What explanation have they offered for how their proposal will somehow empower our AG to get around this language? If they were serious, wouldn’t they need to propose an Amendment repealing this language from Article VI, before proposing a bill like SB 129? Secession, as Cory suggests, wouldn’t really work since this would negate the entire US Constitution, including the right to bear arms, and thereby eliminate the necessity for such a bill at all. This legislative proposal seems analogous to taking a big manly gun and going hunting for deadly and dangerous Grizzly bears but neglecting to bring along any ammo for that big gun.

  8. Loren 2021-02-04

    BCB, they don’t offer explanations. Republicans have taken to the idea that you go with your gut. There is no planning for the “then what.” Cancel Obama Care… then what? Drastically lower tax rates… then what? Strip children from parents… then what? Get out of NATO… then what? Cancel Iranian Pact… then what? Pull troops and leave the Kurds… then what? Etc, etc, etc…

  9. Buckobear 2021-02-04

    Well, if passed our incompetent (and as yet unindicted ) AG will have to conduct the defense. Lookin’ good Jessica.

  10. Dicta 2021-02-04

    So I guess preemption is not a thing anymore?

  11. Arlo Blundt 2021-02-04

    well…I like my guns as well as the next guy but this bill is just a proposal to throw tax dollars down a rat hole.The legislature should spend this time finding ways to improve pheasant hunting.I guess that’s too practical.

  12. mike from iowa 2021-02-04

    Yer state tried to eliminate every pheasant predator under the sun a couple years ago and paid a bounty for varmint tails. How did that work out for birds and habitat, Arlo?

  13. Jake 2021-02-04

    Counting on our AG to take on the Feds is kinda like a flea crawling up an elephant’s ass with rape on his mind!

  14. Arlo Blundt 2021-02-04

    well…Mike from Iowa,,,son’t get me started…Its the March of Folly and a certain political party starts up the band every time their Farm to the Fence Rows” Ag policy destroys enough wildlife habitat so that even an honest pheasant can’t earn a living out there. Back in the 60’s after the Soil Bank was eliminated and the pheasant population crashed, Al Shock, the owner of Terrace Park Dairy and Joe Foss and some other Sioux Falls whiz bangs launched a huge campaign to kill off the predators be they coyotes, or fox, badger or skunk, mink , owl or red tailed hawk. They spent a lot of money, killed a lot of critters and it had no impact at allsant population.. Then the CREEP program came in, and with habitat, lo and behold, the pheasants came back. The most recent effort of that type was just as unsuccessful but it makes the “gin and tonic” sportsmen from Sioux Falls feel like they did something for hunting. This state lost a great deal of its common sense about wildlife when Tony Dean died., and John Cooper retired..Back to the topic, what’s the hub bub about having all this guns and ammo, if you’ve got nothing to hunt??? I always thought target and skeet shooting was like kissing your sister..

  15. mike from iowa 2021-02-04

    Had four rooster pheasants in my front yard Sunday afternoon. Although I no longer farm, there is still some areas around here left in grasses and bushes for wildlife along with dozens of evergreens we planted for windbreak and pheasants to roost in in the winter.

    I also see marginally wet ground being tiled out to be row cropped, although I had thought it was illegal. New owner raises more cattle than we used to but every bit of used bedding is hauled out into the fields every couple days. Feed floors are scraped and piled up for garden compost and used on fields and pastures. Like us before him, he rotates cattle on three divided pastures and round bales the other pasture for cattle feed.

  16. grudznick 2021-02-04

    Mr. Blundt has some good points. South Dakota did lose a lot of common sense when Mr. Cooper quit bonking people on the heads out there to make them toe the line, and I mean as a fed. And poor Mr. DeChandt, he was righter than right on most all issues about critters.

  17. Southsider 2021-02-04

    The voters of SD are currently attempting to force the State to ignore federal statute regarding cannabis. While I agree with BcB that these people are clueless, I do not think it is as simple as “what the feds say always goes”

  18. Jenny 2021-02-05

    I was wondering when the first ammosexual bill was going to come up.

  19. bearcreekbat 2021-02-05

    I totally agree with Southsider’s proposition that “what the feds say always goes” is an oversimplification as it pertains to conflicts with State laws. Circumstances where “what the feds say” does not always go include:

    – when a court finds that the feds law in question is contrary to the U.S.Constitution; or

    – when feds refuse or decline to enforce particular federal laws despite States openly violating these laws, such as many federal criminal laws inconsistant with recently enacted State laws relating to marihuana distibution and related activities; or

    – when a federal or state trial court judge issues an incorrect ruling and the ruling is either not appealed, or is affirmed by an intermediate appellate court and the SCOTUS declines to review the case.

    There may be other examples I have overlooked, but outside of these exceptions a State that enacts a law inconsistent with existing federal law will always lose a court challenge to that State law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *