This is the first FFA in the nation where federal officials could be criminally prosecuted for trying to enforce federal firearms laws. While that might sound good to some, the states need to be cautious about appearing as the aggressor. One false move could tarnish the state sovereignty movement and forever damage the cause in the court of public opinion. The key to successfully using nullification is to expose the federal government as the aggressive, unconstitutional usurper, and states would be wise to not directly confront them.
My extremely talented associate at the Tenth Amendment Center, Josh Eboch, wrote the following in the comment section:
However, I for one would like to see federal agents arrested if they are so arrogant as to attempt to disregard state firearms laws. Many of them need a swift kick in the ass, and a bold move like that could help fuel the public debate over the proper balance between federal and state authority.
I still think the key to winning in the court of public opinion is by appearing as the wronged party. If we take the Gandhi route and let the Feds be the aggressors, we illustrate how drunk with power they’ve become. I fear that if we act more aggressively, we run the risk of fitting the “fringe agitator” stereotype that the establishment is trying so desperately to pin on us. Josh feels otherwise.
So, fellow tenthers, what do you think? Should 10th Amendment legislation take a more agressive or passive tone?