In the 2013 session of the Nebraska Unicameral, two state senators have introduced a number of bills that if passed would prohibit the federal government from imposing any sort of of federally passed gun control measures in Nebraska, to include a ban on assault weapons, closing the
"gun show loophole" on the requirement for background checks and restricting the magazine size of semi-automatic weapons. Essentially this
means that Nebraska would simply ignore and not enforce any new gun control laws that Congress might pass.
In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Haller that the Second Amendment confers an indicvidual the right to own
firearms; however, the government can pass laws restricting that right provided that the laws meet a compelling governmental interest and do
not unnecessarily restrict that right.
The state senators who introduced the Unicameral bills believe that the federal government will be unnecessarily restricting Nebraskans'
Second Amendment rights if Congress passes any new gun control legislation. In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Haller, does the federa
government have the right to do this and if so, what is the compelling governmental interest that would allow it to pass such laws? Would they
be constitutional? What about the bills introduced in the Unicameral? Would they preempt the federal government or are there some
constitutional problems there as well?