NH HB 1285 Firearm Act

[NHAtHeart]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1285.html

159-E:2 Prohibitions. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

I did a quick search on 1285 and didn't see this.

Would this apply to NFA items manufactured in NH?

 

[cekim]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1285.html



I did a quick search on 1285 and didn't see this.

Would this apply to NFA items manufactured in NH?

a. Someone has to sign up to be the test case
b. It would not apply to anyone already licensed federally as a manufacturer - they are bound by the terms of their FFL.
c. Let the fun begin...

 

[NHAtHeart]

So... lets talk theory here, someone opens a shop, builds short barreled rifles, does the machining and everything, does NOT have a federal FFL. These firearms would be allowed to be sold within the state of NH but NOT exported to other states. Would that be a correct statement?

Where are the lawyers when you need them.

 

[cekim]

So... lets talk theory here, someone opens a shop, builds short barreled rifles, does the machining and everything, does NOT have a federal FFL. These firearms would be allowed to be sold within the state of NH but NOT exported to other states. Would that be a correct statement?

Where are the lawyers when you need them.

This has been discussed, at least peripherally... You are correct to suggest the lawyers would need to be involved as I suspect the ATF would believe themselves able to regulate such behavior (i.e. manufacturing without a license), yet the state law implies its ok for private use.

The trouble of course is that the ATF will arrest you (after shooting your dog, wife and child and potentially burning down your house in the process). Then you can argue the finer points to a judge while wearing bracelets and a nice jump-suit and hope for the best.

Get film!

 

[cekim]

p.s. I thought at least one of the other state's version of this "sovereignty" legislation includes a specific state-level prohibition of full-auto... Montana I believe?

 

[RKG]

Stupid enactment.

This statute purports to state the outcome of a hypothetical challenge (which would have to be in federal court) to a federal statute. If the federal statute is defective (because it purports to reach situations that are beyond the constitutional powers of Congress), it is defective without regard to this NH statute, and if the federal statute is not defective, the NH statute cannot make it so.

Interesting sentiment, but this is a juvenile way to go about it.

 

[drgrant]

The trouble of course is that the ATF will arrest you (after shooting your dog, wife and child and potentially burning down your house in the process). Then you can argue the finer points to a judge while wearing bracelets and a nice jump-suit and hope for the best.

Cekim,

You forgot stomping any kittens which may exist on the premises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKPzB1HKqpU

Just change "RIAA" to "ATF" and this is about right.


-Mike

 

[cekim]

Interesting sentiment, but this is a juvenile way to go about it.

Agreed...

It is symbolic at best... I think we all understand the SCOTUS to have failed in its charge to limit Federal powers here (as it has expanded the interpretation of "interstate commerce" to provide near limitless power to the Federal government... )

So, a symbolic gesture that gets people talking can be of value if it makes itself known at the ballot box...

 

[KBCraig]

This would be just like legalizing marijuana: the ATF wouldn't care, just like the DEA doesn't care. Unless there is both the authority and will to kick out or lock up any feds who come calling, the feds will still enforce their laws no matter what the states say.

 

[Twigg]

Unless there is both the authority and will to kick out or lock up any feds who come calling, the feds will still enforce their laws no matter what the states say.

Apparently there is such a mechanism, if you scroll down after clicking the link;

159-E:4 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

 

[NHAtHeart]

Has anybody heard anything about this? I checked the bills status and it's listed as "inexpedient to legislate" no idea what that means. Is it "we're in no hurry to deal with this"?

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?lsr=2014&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=HB1285

 

[Twigg]

it's listed as "inexpedient to legislate"

That means try again after the next election.

 

[TLB]

p.s. I thought at least one of the other state's version of this "sovereignty" legislation includes a specific state-level prohibition of full-auto... Montana I believe?

You are correct. Here are the exceptions from the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (HB 246):

"Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device."

Full bill:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

 

[Lamina]

Oh boy... if this passes I see making friends with a machinist in my future.

 

[Zappa]

You are correct. Here are the exceptions from the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (HB 246):

"Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

Wow, EC will ditch that puny S&W 500 and move to Montana when someone starts making a 150 Caliber Mega Magnum.

 

[gjones77]

Wow, EC will ditch that puny S&W 500 and move to Montana when someone starts making a 150 Caliber Mega Magnum.

That thing better come with a support system and an exo skeleton, you're going to need it if you don't want to end up on your arse after firing.

Then again, I think you would need is one shot

 

[ShadeWPI]

The medical marijian case did make it to the Supreme Court. In their ruling on that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government does not have the ability to regulate intra-state commerce, but since their was no way to determine if a given sample of marijian was "California Grown" or had been grown elsewere, and thus involved in interstate commerce, the Federal Government could maintain juristiction under Interstate Commerce.

This has lead several states to write laws establishing a class of product (typically firearms) which is specifically forbidden from interstate commerce and marked as such. This is an attempt to use the precident set by the California Grown Marijian case opinion.

So, in truth, the Supreme court has ruled on interstate commerce with their opinion in that ruling, but you're still going to have to fight it in the courts. I know Montana is looking for someone to be thier test case and has offered to provide the legal backing to fight it, though they want a "sqeaky clean" person to manufacturer the .22 LR rifles so the court MUST decided on the specific issue and can't sidestep the subject as they like to do on tough cases.

 

[ShadeWPI]

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

Full bill:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

1.5" is about 37mm. Scale up an AR-15 action by 6x and build a mount for it for the bed of your pick-up truck. I'm sure you'll get cut off a lot less on the highway.